[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-301881-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":80,"doc-detail-301881-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari-petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari-to-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-first-circuit","Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit","","Petition for a Writ of Certiorari submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court seeks review of a First Circuit decision arising from a habeas corpus request. The petition challenges the denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA) and argues that the lower court applied an incorrect standard, including a failure to hold a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) despite reasonably specific, non-conclusory factual allegations. It also contends that the district court conducted a full merits analysis rather than the required “debatability” framework referenced by Buck v. Davis.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari-petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari-to-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-first-circuit/301881/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari-petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari-to-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-first-circuit/301881.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Lucas Martin","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-26","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":22},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What issues does the petition present for the Supreme Court’s review?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The petition presents whether habeas corpus should issue based on Strickland/Hill standards, whether the denial of a COA stemmed from an abuse of discretion for failing to hold a § 2255(b) hearing, and whether the COA decision used the wrong “debatability” standard under Buck v. Davis.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"Which legal mechanism is central to the petition’s requested relief?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"The petition seeks a Writ of Certiorari and challenges the denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA), arguing entitlement to appeal the district court’s decision denying § 2255 relief.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What does the petition argue about the hearing requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b)?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"It argues that the district court erred by not holding a hearing despite allegations that were reasonably specific and non-conclusory, and that this failure contributed to the erroneous denial of a COA.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},301881,1790420251,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,88,93,98,103,108,113,117,122],{"id":84,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":127},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":114,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":141},8796095360427,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","No. 19-   \n\n| In The\u003Cbr>Supreme Court of the United States\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>JOSEPH A. CARAMADRE,\u003Cbr>Petitioner,\u003Cbr>v.\u003Cbr>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\u003Cbr>Respondent. |\n| --- |\n| On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit |\n| PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI |\n| JOHN W. MITCHELL, ESQ.\u003Cbr>LAW OFFICE OF JOHN W. MITCHELL Supreme Court Bar \\# 200159 Attorney for Petitioner\u003Cbr>P.O. Box 163\u003Cbr>Bedford, New York 10506\u003Cbr>(914) 234-6260\u003Cbr>[lawofficejwm@gmail.com](lawofficejwm@gmail.com) |\n\nDICK BAILEY SERVICE, Inc. · 1-800-531-2028 · [dickbailey.com](dickbailey.com)  \n[REPRODUCED ON RECYCLED PAPER]  \ni  \nQUESTIONS PRESENTED  \n1. Should a Writ of Habeas Corpus issue to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (“Court of Appeals”) on the grounds that the showing that Petitioner made before the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island (“District Court”), in support of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence, satisfied the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S. Ct. 366 (1985) and their progeny, and therefore, that Court of Appeals erred in denying Petitioner’s motion for a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) permitting him to appeal the District Court’s Decision and Order denying Petitioner’s motion and denying him a COA.  \n2. Should a Writ of Habeas Corpus issue to the Court of Appeals because that Court erred in failing to grant Petitioner’s Motion for a COA on the grounds that in the proceedings below, the District Court abused its discretion by failing to hold a hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (b), eventhough Petitioner’s Motion alleged reasonably specific, non-conclusory facts that, if true, would have entitled him to relief.  \n3. Should a Writ of Habeas Corpus issue to the Court of Appeals because that Court erred in failing to grant Petitioner’s Motion for a COA on the grounds that the District Court did not apply the proper standard in adjudicating Petitioner’s request for a COA, because the District Court did not base its decision upon the standard of “debatability,” but rather on a full merits analysis, in violation of this  \nii  \nCourt’s holding in Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773, 197 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2017) .  \niii  \nLIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING  \nAll parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.  \nCORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT  \nNo corporations are involved in this case.  \niv  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nPage  \nQUESTIONS PRESENTED ..................................... i  \nLIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ........ iii  \nCORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........ iii  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................... iv  \n[TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... vi](TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... vi)  \n[APPENDIX INDEX................................................](APPENDIX INDEX................................................). ix  \nPETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI .......... 1  \nOpinions Below ................................................... 1  \nJurisdiction ......................................................... 1  \nConstitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved ............................................................... 1  \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................. 2  \nProcedural Background ...................................... 2  \nFactual Background and Travel ........................ 4  \nThe Evolution and Nature of the Underlying Criminal Case ................................. 6  \nThe Radhakrishnan Declaration Why  \nPetitioner’s Co-Defendant’s Testimony  \nWould Have Been So Powerfully Exculpatory ....................................................... 11  \nThe Government Offered No Testimony,  \nAffidavits or Evidence of Any Kind to  \nControvert the Sworn Declarations Proffered by the Petitioner and/or Mr. Radhakrishnan ............","cbCaisG3c6hzl5G6","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaisG3c6hzl5G6","pdf",409162,54,"English","# Questions Presented\n# List of Parties to the Proceeding\n# Corporate Disclosure Statement\n# Table of Contents\n# Table of Authorities\n# Petition for a Writ of Certiorari\n## Opinions Below\n## Jurisdiction\n## Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved\n# Statement of the Case\n## Procedural Background\n## Factual Background and Travel\n## The Evolution and Nature of the Underlying Criminal Case\n## The Radhakrishnan Declaration\n## The Government Offered No Testimony, Affidavits or Evidence\n## The District Court Did Not Call For or Conduct a Hearing\n## The Memorandum and Order of the District Court\n## Standard for Determining Whether A Certificate of Appealability Should Issue\n# Reasons for Granting the Writ\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What issues does the petition present for the Supreme Court’s review?\",\"answer\":\"The petition presents whether habeas corpus should issue based on Strickland/Hill standards, whether the denial of a COA stemmed from an abuse of discretion for failing to hold a § 2255(b) hearing, and whether the COA decision used the wrong “debatability” standard under Buck v. Davis.\"},{\"question\":\"Which legal mechanism is central to the petition’s requested relief?\",\"answer\":\"The petition seeks a Writ of Certiorari and challenges the denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA), arguing entitlement to appeal the district court’s decision denying § 2255 relief.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the petition argue about the hearing requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b)?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that the district court erred by not holding a hearing despite allegations that were reasonably specific and non-conclusory, and that this failure contributed to the erroneous denial of a COA.\"}]","Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit | PDF",1789786046,19]