Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Jaqwon Davonte Lupe v. United States

IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 25-2461 · judgment November 19, 2025


Pending

Question presented

Petitioner pleaded guilty to committing an assault on a private residence located on an Indian reservation in Indian country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(b)(3) & 1153. Although his plea agreement contained a waiver of his right to appeal his conviction, petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit, contending that his guilty plea and, thus, also his plea agreement (including the appellate waiver provision) were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because petitioner erroneously was led to believe that he was guilty of violating §§ 113(b)(3) & 1153 merely because his assault occurred anywhere in Indian country as opposed to occurring at a specific location in Indian country within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Petitioner alternatively contended that the appellate waiver was unenforceable because petitioner was actually innocent of the assault, as it unquestionably did not occur within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” an essential element of §§ 113(b)(3) & 1153. In view of the foregoing, the questions presented are: I. Whether, in view of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629 (2022), “Indian country” in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151 & 1153 is no longer coterminous with the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” II. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by ruling that petitioner’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent when the record clearly reveals that petitioner erroneously was led to believe that he was guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(b)(3) & 1153 merely because his assault occurred in Indian country generally as opposed to occurring at a specific location in Indian country within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” III. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by concluding that petitioner’s actual innocence of the charge under 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(b)(3) & 1153 is not an exception to the general rule requiring enforcement of a waiverof-appeal provision in a plea agreement.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Brent Evan Newton

For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Jul 20 2026
    Supplemental brief of petitioner Jaqwon Lupe filed. (Distributed)
  2. Jun 18 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2026.
  3. Jun 11 2026
    Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.
  4. Jun 10 2026
    Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
  5. Apr 30 2026
    Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 10, 2026)