Cases compared
Diaz v. United States vs. Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar v. Niemi vs. Moses v. United States
No. 26-5012No. 26-5033No. 26-5039
Side by side
| Fact | Abel Diaz, Petitioner v. United States | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, Ohio | Somorie Moses, Petitioner v. United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | Abel Diaz, Petitioner v. United States26-5012 | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, Ohio26-5033 | Somorie Moses, Petitioner v. United States26-5039 |
| Status | Abel Diaz, Petitioner v. United StatesDismissed | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, OhioDismissed | Somorie Moses, Petitioner v. United StatesDismissed |
| Date | Abel Diaz, Petitioner v. United StatesOctober Term 2026 (2026–2027) | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, OhioOctober Term 2026 (2026–2027) | Somorie Moses, Petitioner v. United StatesOctober Term 2026 (2026–2027) |
| Question presented | Abel Diaz, Petitioner v. United States1. WHETHER SUBSTANTIVE STATUTORY-INTERPRETATION DECISIONS SUCH AS BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998), REHAIF V. UNITED STATES, 588 U.S. 225 (2019), AND RUAN V. UNITED STATES, 597 U.S. 450 (2022), APPLY RETROACTIVELY ON COLLATERAL REVIEW WHERE THOSE DECISIONS DEFINE THE SUBSTANTIVE MEANING OF A FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE AND DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED WITHOUT PROOF OF ESSENTIAL STATUTORY ELEMENTS. 2. WHETHER 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2), AS APPLIED TO A PRISONER ASSERTING LEGAL INNOCENCE BASED UPON AN INTERVENING SUBSTANTIVE INTERPRETATION OF A FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE, VIOLATES THE SUSPENSION CLAUSE AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOR FORECLOSING ANY JUDICIAL FORUM IN WHICH TO PRESENT SUCH INNOCENCE CLAIMS. 3. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS CONTINUED IMPRISONMENT UNDER 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) AND 841(b) WHERE THE JURY NEVER FOUND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE DRUG TYPE AND DRUG QUANTITY, AND MENS REA ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO AUTHORIZE THE SENTENCE IMPOSED. 4. WHETHER ACTUAL INNOCENCE UNDER BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) OVERRIDES PROCEDURAL BARRIERS WHERE INTERVENING DECISIONS ESTABLISH THAT THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED WITHOUT FINDINGS ON ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE. 5. WHETHER THE COURTS BELOW ERRED IN REJECTING PETITIONER'S LONG-STANDING MENS REA CLAIM WHERE PETITIONER ARGUED SINCE DIRECT APPEAL, RELYING UPON FEOLA V. UNITED STATES, 420 U.S. 671 (1975), THAT HE LACKED THE CRIMINAL INTENT NECESSARY FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE NARCOTICS OFFENSE, AND SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS INCLUDING UNITED STATES V. HERAS, 609 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2010), UNITED STATES V. COLLAZO, 984 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 2021), AND UNITED STATES V. COLSTON, 4 F.4th 1179 (11th Cir. 2021), CONFIRM THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVING THE REQUISITE MENS REA FOR DRUG CONSPIRACIES AND RELATED OFFENSES. | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, Ohio1. Whether the Petitioner is detained in violation of the Constitution, where unconditional release upon an unconditional writ of habeas corpus has been ordered yet the state has denied such release? 2. Whether the Petitioner's continued detention violates due process where a vacated judgment is void ab initio, and the court fails to give legal effect to its own vacat.ui\? 3. Whether the Petitioner is detained in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Double Jeopardy and Process Clauses when denied the presumption of innocence of the underlying predicate "aggravated robbery," dismissed, June 9, 1998? 4. Whether detention violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments where the Constitution requires indictment by a grand jury, and the purported indictment fails to allege each and every element Necessary to constitute the purported offense where state law holds this fails to confer jurisdiction but consistently refuses to apply such holding? 5. Whether arrest, warrant, and detention without probable cause violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, rendering detention unlawful? 6. Whether a petitioner is unlawfully detained and entitled to dismissal of the indictment and immediate release where His Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to a Speedy Trial and Due Process has been violated? 7. Whether complete denial of bail violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, rendering detention unconstitutional? 8. Whether denial of a preliminary hearing violates Due Process and Equal Protection of the Laws, resulting in unlawful detention? | Somorie Moses, Petitioner v. United StatesWhether Amendment 591 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines violates the Due Process Clause by requiring the application of Guidelines sections to factual situations (and crimes) inconsistent with the cross-referenced Guideline? Doing so violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by inserting an arbitrary and non-discretionary (i.e., required) element into the calculation of the “starting point” under the Guidelines, which is inconsistent with this Court’s Opinions in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), and Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. 256, 263 (2017), even in an otherwise discretionary sentencing scheme. |
| Summary | Abel Diaz, Petitioner v. United StatesAbel Diaz asks the Supreme Court to review his federal drug conviction, arguing that later rulings show it lacked required proof and that federal limits block a court from hearing his innocence claim. He also challenges the jury’s findings on drug type, quantity, and intent, and says he lacked the criminal intent required for the offenses. | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, OhioMalik Allah-U-Akbar asks the Supreme Court to review his continued detention, arguing that Ohio has not released him despite a court order for unconditional release and that his detention rests on a judgment the court wiped out and an indictment (formal criminal charge) missing required elements. He also claims the detention violates protections against double jeopardy and the presumption of innocence regarding a dismissed aggravated-robbery charge. | Somorie Moses, Petitioner v. United StatesSomorie Moses argues that Amendment 591 makes sentencing judges use guideline sections that do not fit the crime, violating the Fifth Amendment’s protection against unfair government procedures (due process). His petition asks whether that required starting point is unconstitutional even though judges have discretion in other parts of sentencing. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Criminal Procedure
- Why compared
- Reviewed Criminal Procedure tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.