No. 18-6447
Eullis Monroe Goodwin v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: career-offender criminal-procedure due-process ineffective-assistance rule-11 sentencing sentencing-guidelines strickland-standard strickland-v-washington
Latest Conference:
2018-11-30
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did Counsel ' Failure to properly develope and present Objections to Petitioner's designation as an career offender, render Ineffective Assistance under Strickland v Washington.
Did Counsel Failure to present the District Court with additional sentencing options under USSG 3B1.2(a) or 3B1.2(b) rise to the level of deficiency to render counsel ineffective.
3.Did District Court's remarks during chane of plea hearing violate Rule 11 Fed.R.Crim.P and voilate Petitioners Due Process.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did Counsel's Failure to properly develope and present Objections to Petitioner's designation as an career offender, render Ineffective Assistance under Strickland v Washington
Docket Entries
2018-12-03
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.
2018-11-05
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-06-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 26, 2018)
Attorneys
Eullis Goodwin
Eullis Goodwin — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent