No. 19-5275
Richard Michael Mathisen v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 6th-amendment criminal-procedure due-process evidentiary-hearing ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel plea-bargaining post-conviction-relief right-to-counsel sentencing sentencing-hearing sixth-amendment
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in affirming the District Court's denial of the Petitioner's Certificate of Appealability of the District Court's denial of the Petitioner's Motion under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court and Fourth Circuit erred in denying Mr. Mathisen's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-26
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-05-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 21, 2019)
Attorneys
Richard Mathisen
Peter L. Goldman — Saboura, Goldman & Colombo, P.C., Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent