No. 19-7624
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: acceptance-of-responsibility burden-of-proof criminal-procedure due-process eighth-amendment excessive-fines excessive-fines-clause fatico-hearing sentencing
Latest Conference:
2020-10-09
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the District Court violated Petitioner's Due Process
Rights when it erroneously found that the Government had
sustained its burden of proof as
adduced at a Fatico hearing?
Whether the District Court violated Petitioner's Due Process
Rights when, after Petitioner's unsuccessful, good-faith
challenge to facts adduced at a Fatico hearing, it withdrew
previously-credited points for acceptance of responsibility?
Whether the forfeiture order imposed on Petitioner violated
the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the District Court violated Petitioner's Due Process Rights
Docket Entries
2020-10-13
Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing filed by petitioner DENIED.
2020-09-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
2020-07-10
Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing filed by petitioner.
2020-03-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-02-19
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-01-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 13, 2020)
Attorneys
Jerome Shaw
Jerome W. Shaw — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent