No. 18-7623
James Goolsby v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-3582-c-2 appellate-procedure dillion-v-united-states exceptional-circumstances judicial-discretion mandatory-life-sentence mandatory-minimum mandatory-sentencing misapplication-of-guidelines miscarriage-of-justice official-victim-enhancement recall-of-mandate retroactive-amendment sentencing-guidelines
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-02-22
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. WHETHER THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO RECALL THE MANDATE ON THE DIRECT APPEAL TO PREVENT A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion in refusing to recall the mandate on the direct appeal to prevent a miscarriage of justice?
Docket Entries
2019-02-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
2019-02-05
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-08-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 28, 2019)
Attorneys
James Goolsby
James Goolsby — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent