Justice 4 Rajul

Apparently, African American Const. rights & lives don't matter to 4 federal judges of the state of Virginia!

Address: Rawjewel Ruhbayan, No. 51657-083, FCI BUTNER MEDIUM II, P.O. BOX 1500, BUTNER, NC. 27509 RE: S.O.S; Distress call, any help, info. or attention you can provide is Highly WELCOMED!!!

My name is Rajul Ruhbayan. For my non-violent offense of essentially "obstruction of justice” our U.S. Congress, pursuant to the legal tenets of 18 USC B 3553(b)(1), B 3585(b), and 8 3624(a) of the Sixth Amendment holding of Booker, 543 U.S 220 at 226-234 (January 2005)("SAHB"), gave me a 5th Amendment right to a legitimate expectation that the statutory maximum of penalty, I would ultimately, at most face for my obstruction of justice offense, would be a sentence and detention, not to exceed the date of October 2003 or that is to say a time period of 21 months. However, after I had fully served, by Oct. 2003, the 21 months’ period of time, owing to the 21 months I served, in pre-conviction detention, from initial arrest and detention, on January 8, 2002 through to the jury's verdict of guilty, on Oct. 27, 2003, federal district court judge Rebecca Beach Smith of the federal district court of Norfolk, Virginia held me illegally/false imprisoned beyond Oct. 2003, until February 4, 2004, where on such Feb. 4, 2004 date, she imposed, with pretended sentence authority, upon me an illegal sentence of LIFE, WITHOUT PAROLE. On August 20, 2004, "in" appeal court record of Ruhbayan, 406 £.3d 292 at 298 FOOT NOTE SIX (4th cir./April 2005), I filed a 14-page supplemental brief to the three-matter appellate panel of appeal court judges Robert B. King, Allyson K, Duncan and William W. Wilkins of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals of Richmond, Virginia. Specifically, my supp. br. on pages 11-12 presented contested calculations of fact that alerted these three appellate judges that had a 5th Amendment right of a legitimate expectation of finality as to the severity of my sentence or detention to not exceed a date of Oct. 2003 or time period ©of 21 months, based on the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court favorably ruled that judge Smith's, Feb. 4, 2004, imposed sentence and detention of LIFE, WITHOUT, PAROLE, "unlawfully violated" my 5th Amend. right of legitimate expectation of finality, directly according to and based on the U.S. Supreme Court's Directive of Booker ("DOB"), 543 U.S, 220 at 268 (Jan. 2005), and its required applied application of the operative legal tenets of 8 3553(b)(1), B 3585(b) and 8 3624(a) of the operative SAHB, 543 U.S. at226-234, to the contested calculations of fact, set forth on pages 11-12 of my supp. br., that contested custodial portion of sentence and detention's legality, beyond Oct. 2003 (i.e. 21 months). Pages 1-12 of my supp. br., as follows reads, in quote:

"In summary, the Defendant's sentence should be based on an Adjusted Offense Level of 12 and criminal History Category of III, which would have provided for a sentence range of 15-21 months, with no applicable upward departure. CONCLUSION: For the reasons stated above, the Defendant's sentence should be vacated and remanded to the district court to resentence without the enhancements and upward departures, in violation of BLAKELY (i.e., legal tenets of SAHB)."

"In April 2005, the appeal court record of Ruhbayan, 406 £.3d 292 at 301 FOOT NOTE NINE (4th cir./Apr.2005), clearly exposes that these four judges employed/used materially false misinformation or assumption of calculations of fact when they corruptly switched the actual calculations of fact of my supp. br.'s, above, pages 11-12 with their, below quoted, calculation facts, in order to cover up their false imprisonment of Mr. Ruhbayan, since Oct. 2003, and to forcefully expose his custodial portion of the sentence to be fatally prejudiced by the effects of the new rule of the Remedial Holding of Booker ("RHB"), 543 U.S. at 245-248; However, such forced exposure is unlawful & constitutes false imprisonment according to the Federal Case of Georgia, 569 £.3d 281 at 286,289 (6th Cir./2009) & according to the DOB's legal tenet of Griffith V. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 at 328, 321 footnote 6 (1987). These 4 judges’ "corrupt switch" of the calculations of fact, above in FOOT NOTE NINE, as follows reads in quote:" Assuming, without deciding that the trial court correctly calculated Ruhbayan's Criminal History at VI and Iris Offense Level at 32, application of the B 3B1.1(a) enhancement (resulting in an offense Level of 36) increased the applicable sentencing range by.62 months, from 210-262 to324-405 months. "Ongoing Since FOOT NOTE NINE's "corrupt switch” of contested calculations of fact, these4 judges subsequently for the past ongoing 17 years have fought tooth and nail to keep covered-up their ongoing " corrupt switch”, violation of Mr. Ruhbayan's 5th Amendment right of a legitimate expectation of finality &. bis false 4mprisonment and enslavement of an ongoing 18 years, despite his court motions of appeal to 4 judges.