Question Presented (from Petition)
1) Did the lower courts err in their interpretation even as Chuck Bates' offense did not result in substantial forfeiture? Courts interpretation Cond Ire with Long peas' intend ihe, wed appear Te (eqs re. More then 2 Mere SV ate pent of a vretin but nsGed Pe pene SOME elear aur dence ond/o/ witaress for Cpess~ Cxoumetion dois nos fot. hodenrchans!
II) Ded Ho. destricl Court abuse its discrefon gud deny due freed in deny ony the motions of Chuck Babs fo Sever ple tora! Fron hel of his tathe Chodes Larry Bots as Cinuletive gud unpelabd Castimony and evidence SerwAd Lo Lam freal ¢
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the lower courts erred in their interpretation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on excessive fines and punishments as the forfeiture amount was more than Chuck Bates' offense did not result in substantial financial loss
2020-04-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.
2020-04-21
Reply of petitioner Charles E. Bates filed. (Distributed)
2020-04-10
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2020-03-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 13, 2020.
2020-03-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 13, 2020 to April 13, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-01-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 13, 2020.
2020-01-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 12, 2020 to March 13, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-01-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 12, 2020.
2020-01-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 13, 2020 to February 12, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-10-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 13, 2020)