No. 18-8044
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure government-rights judicial-integrity judicial-proceedings mandatory-minimum plain-error sentencing sentencing-error substantial-rights
Latest Conference:
2019-03-22
Question Presented (from Petition)
in derogation of them may constitute "plain error" under Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 52(b)?
If so, did the imposition of a sentence of post-release supervision below a statutory mandatory minimum affect the government's "substantial rights" in this case?
If it did, did the imposition of such a sentence also "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings" as required by United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the government have 'substantial rights' such that actions taken in derogation of them may constitute 'plain error' under Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 52(b)?
Docket Entries
2019-03-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2019.
2019-02-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-02-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 25, 2019)
Attorneys
Lois Brooks
Andrew St Laurent — Harris, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent