No. 18-6910
Elseddig Elmarioud Musa v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process evidence evidentiary-sufficiency fraud-allegations judicial-discretion jury-instructions motion-for-acquittal prosecutorial-misconduct rule-29-motion sufficiency-of-evidence
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity
Environmental SocialSecurity
Latest Conference:
2019-01-04
Question Presented (from Petition)
I.
Whether The District Court Improperly Denied Musa's Rule 29 Motion Because
The Government Did Not Properly Present The Case To The Jury And Left Many
Unanswered Questions?
II.
Whether Musa Is Entitled To A New Trial Because Unmatched Claims Are Not
Necessarily Fraudulent?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court improperly denied Musa's Rule 29 motion
Docket Entries
2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-12-11
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-09-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 3, 2019)
Attorneys
Elseddig Musa
Florence M. Bruemmer — Law Office of Florence M. Bruemmer, P.C., Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent