No. 19-5870
Shakeem Heratio Crawford v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: career-offender civil-rights criminal-justice criminal-law criminal-procedure due-process eighth-amendment ex-post-facto first-step-act parole retroactivity sentencing sentencing-retroactivity statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2019-10-11
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did the Judge Abuse his Discrection under He sth Amendment Due procecc clause by Cotegorically Dening all career orfenders when he stated that career offenders couldnt Benefit From the "First step Act" that wAs Retroactive, Due to the dhange made OF the Statote OF 841 (b)C1)?
Did the Judge F2 Abuse his DiscretioN under who Diont go to trial Receive the Benefit OF the "First otep Act" versus the ones who went to trial sudh as myself?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the judge abuse discretion by categorically denying career offenders benefits under the First Step Act?
Docket Entries
2019-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-09-18
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-08-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 9, 2019)
Attorneys
Shakeem Crawford
Shakeem Heratio Crawford — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent