Mike Duffy, III v. United States

Did the district court’s misapplication of Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) in denying Petitioner’s Rule 29 Motion For Judgment of Acquittal – endorsed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – represent such a departure from the usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for the Supreme Court’s supervisory power?

Were the district court’s actions during the run up to, and during, jury deliberations – endorsed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals through its denial of Petitioner’s Rule 33 Motion For New Trial – so coercive in their effect on the jury’s deliberations as to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, and, moreover, represent such a departure from the usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for the Supreme Court’s supervisory power? PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING All parties to the proceedings are listed in the caption. The petitioner is not a corporation.