IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No 11-6806 (7:08-cr-00054-JCT-1) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff

-- Appellee v WILLIAM A WHITE Defendant Movant Appellant DAVID J DAMICO Respondent _____________________________ PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC PETITION FOR AMICUS COUNSEL TO ARGUE PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC _____________________________ Comes now the Defendant Movant - Appellant, William A WHITE, and moves this Court to rehear the Judgement entered by the Court December 15, 2011 in this case enbanc, arguing that this case involves a matter of exceptional importance, and that the continuing development of new evidence justifies reconsideration. The Defendant also asks that Amicus counsel be appointed to argue his case. This case emerges from the decision of US District Judge James C Turk to order the discovery in the criminal matter underlying this case returned to the United States of America, rather than made available to the Defendant for preparation of an 18 USC 2255 motion. This order was made after Defendants former counsel, David J Damico, entered into an agreement with the United States of

America to dent the Defendant access to the fullness of the evidence against him, both during trial and afterwards. Defendant wishes to assert in an 18 USC 2255 motion that he received inadequate counsel during his trial in December 2009, and the related proceedings. As evidence in furtherance of this, the Defendant will proffer the following: 1) A divorce proceeding has been ongoing between the Defendant and his ex-wife in the City of Roanoke since July 2011, and in that proceeding the Defendant has made the claim that during the period 2008 through 2011, his ex-wife embezzled or destroyed in excess of $2 million in assets, and then contacted various parties and maliciously slandered the Defendant with the intent of causing the Defendant to be imprisoned, to be imprisoned in harsher conditions, and to be imprisoned for a longer period of time. 2) In divorce proceedings between the Defendant and his ex-wife, his ex-wife has testified, after an initial denial, that she slandered the Defendant to his counsel, David J Damico, and provided Damico with incorrect information about evidence in the case, with the intent that this would impact what evidence was presented in the criminal trial. 3) The Defendants ex-wife additionally has admitted to, from time to time, not paying the counsel for the Defendant, when funds for such payments were available, and the Defendant has asserted that this was in furtherance of her scheme to defraud the Defendant and his investors by embezzling funds from his business ventures. 4) During the criminal trial in Roanoke, Damico had hard evidence in his possession, provided by the United States of America during discovery, that the Defendant did not make the phone call to Kathleen Kerr for which he was convicted. Particularly, he had a police report from the police department servicing the University of Delaware, stating that the call in question was made from a number in Maryland unrelated to the Defendant. 5) During the criminal trial in Roanoke, Damico had strong evidence that the phone call to Kerr was made by a government informer, Michael Burks, who impersonated the Defendant, but refused to present this evidence. 6) During the criminal trial in Roanoke, Damico had a number of personal email from former US Attorney Thomas Bondurant, stating that Bondurant did not feel that the Defendants actions regarding Jennifer Petsche merited prosecution or rose to the level of a crime, but Damico refused to present this evidence.

7) During the criminal trial in Roanoke, Damico was aware that the government had arrested the Defendant by mistake particularly because a federal informant, Harold Turner, since convicted of soliciting the murder of three federal judges in Chicago as part of a scheme to extort money from the US Marshals which included slandering the Defendant but refused to prevent evidence to this effect because the Defendants ex-wife persuaded Damico that the Defendant was insane and making up the allegations. Had Damico followed up on the matter, he would have discovered a number of pieces of evidence, including emails and internal FBI reports, later provided to the Defendant during a subsequent trial, indicating that this was not insane or made up but absolutely true. 8) During the proceedings that followed the criminal trial in Roanoke, Damico refused to draft a Motion for Directed Verdict of Acquittal, and the Defendant ended up drafting the motion from his prison cell and providing it to Damico, who merely provided his name.

And the Defendant has strong reason to believe that there was other evidence provided to Damico in the discovery that Damico concealed from the Defendant or refused to follow up on either because he was not being paid as agreed, was being misled by the Defendants ex-wife, or was otherwise maliciously oriented towards the Defendant. The United States response consisted entirely of the assertion that the Defendant would use the information to obtain personal data on people involved in the case. The Defendant has extensive personal data on all of the Department of Justice, US Courts personnel and witnesses involved in the case and does not need access to the discovery for that purpose. Respectfully Submitted,

William A White PO Box 8631 Roanoke, VA 24014