Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Objections to the Report and Recommendation — United States v. Gladys Harun (3:23-cr-3)

Full text

Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document 87 _ Filed 06/25/26 Page 1of6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA oa FILED

Gladys Harun,

‘ti m7, JINIS P [2
Petitioner, 7 JUN 25 P bE 2u

V. Case No: 323-003 CL LO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Movant, Gladys Harun, proceeding pro se for the limited purpose of this motion, respectfully
requests leave of this Court to file supplemental objections to the United States Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). This motion is necessary to prevent the
waiver of numerous meritorious constitutional and procedural claims that were omitted from
the objections filed by counsel.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On June 24, 2026, Rodney Zell; counsel for Movant filed “Petitioner’s Objections to
United States Magistrate Judge’s Final Report and Recommendation” (Doc. 85).
2. Movant had specifically requested the opportunity to review and provide input on
these objections before they were filed with the Court but was not afforded that

opportunity.

Uo

The objections as filed are extremely narrow in scope, focusing exclusively on the
amount of restitution and a related claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at

sentencing.
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document 87 Filed 06/25/26 Page 2of6

4. Critically, the filed objections explicitly state: “She is not objecting to any finding
regarding the entry of her guilty plea or her sentencing apart from the amount of
restitution.” (Doc. 85 at 1).

5. This limiting statement effectively abandons the vast majority of the significant and
meritorious claims raised in Movant’s original § 2255 motion, preventing them from
receiving the required de novo review from this Court.

GROUNDS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS

A. Failure to Preserve Critical Claims

The objections filed by counsel (Doc. 85) completely omit any challenge to the Magistrate
Judge’s findings on the following critical issues raised in Movant’s § 2255 petition:

* Procedural Defects: The Magistrate Judge’s failure to rule on Movant’s pending
Motion to Supplement the Record (Doc. 72) before issuing the R&R.

* Widespread Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The serial failures of all five of
Movant’s previous attorneys, which went far beyond the sentencing phase.

¢ Improper Venue: The constitutional and jurisdictional defect of being prosecuted in
the Southern District of Georgia when all essential conduct occurred in the Middle
District.

* Brady and Giglio Violations: The government’s suppression of dispositive
exculpatory evidence, including tax, business, and payroll records held by
government agencies, which prove the legitimacy of Movant’s business.

* Perjured Testimony: The government’s reliance on perjured testimony by federal
agents who falsely claimed Movant had no legitimate business.

¢ Fundamental Prosecutorial Error: The government’s erroneous application of the
52-week payroll formula instead of the correct 12-week seasonal employer formula,

which was the sole basis for the fraud allegation.
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document 87 Filed 06/25/26 Page 3of6

Illegality of the Restitution Order: The argument that the restitution is illegal under
the MVRA because the SBA’s loan forgiveness establishes zero actual loss, not
merely that the calculation was wrong.

Constitutional Violations: The double jeopardy and Eighth Amendment excessive

fines issues raised by the sentence and restitution order.

B. Irreparable Prejudice from the Narrow Scope of Objections

The failure to raise these issues is not a matter of strategy but a matter of waiver. Controlling

case law establishes that un-objected-to portions of an R&R do not receive meaningful

review, thus waiving them for appeal.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), a district judge “must determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected
to.” See Henderson v. Black, No. 1:23-CV-1250, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169601, at 2
(N.D. Ohio Sep. 19, 2024). Issues not raised in an objection do not trigger this
mandatory review.

As one court held, “A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of
the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made.”
Jones v. Phelps, No. 2:20-CV-01369-RMG, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154696, at /
(D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2021).

The consequences are severe: “Failure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual
findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Kleckley v. State of
Fla., No. 22-14227-ClV, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191845, at 3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 20,
2022).

Ultimately, “The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives

any further right to appeal.” Dowd v. United States, No. 17-10707, 2020 U.S. Dist.
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document 87 _ Filed 06/25/26 Page 4of6

LEXIS 85278, at 2 (E.D. Mich. May 15, 2020) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985)). -
Without leave to supplement, Movant’s strongest grounds for relief will be procedurally
forfeited.
C. The Dispositive Nature of the Omitted SBA Loan Forgiveness Issue
The most glaring omission is the failure to object based on the actions of the alleged victim,
the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA has not recalled Movant’s loans and has
provided documents confirming that it audited Movant’s records, was satisfied with how the
loan funds were used, and proceeded to forgive the loans. This evidence directly contradicts
the government’s theory of fraud and establishes zero actual loss under the Mandatory
Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). This single, un-objected-to issue is potentially dispositive
of the entire case.
D. Communication Breakdown with Counsel
Movant is forced to file this motion because of a complete breakdown in communication with
counsel. Movant attempted to contact counsel numerous times via telephone and email to
discuss the specific issues that needed to be included in the objections. Counsel did not
respond to these communications and only called Movant on the deadline day, June 22, 2026.
During this call, counsel admitted that he did not have access to Movant’s documents in
PACER and that he had never taken a look at the Motion to Supplement the Record and the
exhibits attached with it. As a direct result, he was not in a position to advocate for the
petitioner. Counsel missed critical issues raised in Movant’s § 2255 petition for failure to
exercise diligence and visit the court to access documents ahead of time. Movant was denied
the opportunity to review the objections before filing, despite her specific request. This lack
of preparation and communication directly resulted in the filing of a critically deficient

document that does not reflect Movant’s position or protect her rights.
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document 87 Filed 06/25/26 Page5of6

LEGAL STANDARD

Movant acknowledges that objections to a magistrate’s report are not considered “pleadings”
that can be amended as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
However, this Court retains the inherent authority and discretion to permit supplemental
filings to prevent manifest injustice, particularly in the context of a § 2255 proceeding where
fundamental rights are at stake. Given the risk of waiving numerous meritorious
constitutional claims due to counsel’s unilateral and unexplained actions, granting leave is
necessary to ensure a just resolution.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this Motion and
provide leave to file supplemental objections that properly address all of the meritorious
constitutional and procedural issues raised in her § 2255 motion. This relief is essential to
prevent the waiver of her claims and ensure a full and fair review of this matter.

Respectfully submitted, this 24th day of June, 2026.
Petitioner has attached the omitted objections that she dire need to be considered by court.

Respectfully submitted, this 24th day of June, 2026.
GLADYS HARUN, Pro Se

PO BOX 6294

Warner Robins GA 31095. Ci) —p
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document 87 Filed 06/25/26 Page 6of6

21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 24th day of June, 2026, I have served a true and correct copy of

the foregoing Supplemental Objections upon the office of the United States Attorney for the

Southern District of Georgia via mail

GLADYS HARUN- Pro se

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.87.0.pdf

Size

428,256 bytes

SHA-256

0b23c7acc912c4b530ccb24c64514ad17c6a2bb8b9727ea9de3fd702bb827a10

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.87.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)