Michael Bouchard v. United States

I. Under the “false statements statute”, 18 U.S.C. §1014, it is a crime to knowingly make “any false ' statement or report ... for the purpose of influencing in any way the action” of the enumerated entities in the statute. In 2009 Congress amended §1014 to cover “mortgage lending businesses”. The question presented is whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit contravened this Court’s precedents by denying Michael Bouchard’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability (COA Motion) and Motion for Panel Reconsideration & Reconsideration en banc for Mr. Bouchard to obtain review of his claim that the indictment and the manner in which it was prosecuted violated the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause by retroactively applying the 2009 amended version of §1014 to pre-amendment alleged conduct? II. Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), this Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to the effective assistance of counsel for their defense. The question presented is whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit contravened this Court’s precedents and Circuit Courts’ precedents by denying Michael Bouchard’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability and Motion for Panel Reconsideration & Reconsideration en banc for Mr. Bouchard to \ QBvmo^n ! f i; m z s flAM !: J ->0 •_ r.n..jrf-suo;^ animus