Juan Manuel Cruzado-Laureano v. United States

FOR COURT REVIEW Is it true that there are no consequences for an appellee who invokes Rule 15, thereby waiving the right to defend against a petition for certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court? Background of the question submitted for Court review The Honorable Panel composed of Barron, Chief Judge, Montecalvo and Aframe, Circuit Judges, issued its Judgment on March 23, 2026 on Appeal Pro-Se #25-1537, exempting the Appellee from filing its Brief of Opposition and honoring its request for Summary Dismissal of Appeal #25-1537 of 09/04/2025 under local Rule 27.0(c). The main legal basis the Appellee uses to request the Summary Disposition of Appeal #25-1537, which seeks the revocation of the summary dismissal of the Pro-Se petition for Coram Nobis oi-69Q(PAD) decreed by the District Court, is that with the two waivers under Rule 15 that the Appellee has invoked to avoid responding to certioraris #21- 6910 and #24-5999 based on conviction oi-69O(jaf) of June 7, 2002, before the Supreme Court, the government has not conceded that there was any error in the criminal prosecution of the Petitioner. This is stated in the last sentence on page 10 of the Motion to Dismiss: “The government has never conceded there was error in Cruzado’s criminal proceedings and any previous waiver or any potential future waiver in certiorari does not create a fundamental error to justify the filing of a new coram petition”. The Panel erred in honoring the Appellee's request for Summary Dismissal of Appeal #25- 1537. The Appellee, on two historic occasions before the Supreme Coure, has WAIVED, invoking Rule 15 of the Court, the right to respond to challenges to the legal validity Of conviction #01-690(JAF) of June 7,2002, which forms the basis Of the "Coram Nobis" denied in the District Court and in Appeal #25-1537. On June 2, 2026, the Panel presided over by Chief Judge Barron issued an order denying the petition for Rehearing or Rehearing en Banc filed the Appellant on May 2, 2026. The Order of Court of June 2.2026 reads as follows: The petition for rehearing having been denied by the panel of judges who decided the case, and the petition for rehearing en banc submitted to the actives judges of this court who are not disqualified and a majority of the judges not having voted that the case be Heard en banc, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc be denied. The recusal requests are denied as moot. See Fed. R. App. P. 40 (c); see also 1st Cir. R. 40.0(c ) (2). *Judge Gelpi is recused and did not participate in the consideration of this matter.