No. 18-9431
William Maurice Smith v. United States
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: criminal-justice-reform criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-retroactivity,sentencing-reform drug-distribution due-process first-step-act griffith-v-kentucky ninth-circuit ninth-circuit-review resentencing retroactive-application retroactivity sentencing sentencing-reform statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities
SocialSecurity Securities
Latest Conference:
2019-11-01
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, (1987) apply to First Step Act of 2018?
If so did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals fail to apply Griffith v. Kentucky?
Should the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Remand Petitioner's Case back to the District Court for a Full Resentencing in Light of the First Step Act of 2018 [Sentencing Reform IV Section 401]?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, (1987) apply to First Step Act of 2018?
Docket Entries
2019-11-04
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.
2019-09-30
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2019-08-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 30, 2019.
2019-08-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 29, 2019 to September 30, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-07-30
Response Requested. (Due August 29, 2019)
2019-06-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-05-28
Application (18A1220) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until May 30, 2019.
2019-05-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 27, 2019)
2019-04-10
Application (18A1220) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 15, 2019 to May 30, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
William Maurice Smith
William Maurice Smith — Petitioner