No. 19-8908

Preston Pope v. United States

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-07-07
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-justice-act criminal-justice-act-1964 davis-decision direct-appeal first-step-act griffith-v-kentucky ineffective-assistance notice-to-client rule-28(j)-letter writ-of-certiorari
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2020-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)

Does the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, fl 5 Still require that Appellant Counsel provide notice to his client by way of a written letter to his client to request if he wants to file a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court?

Does Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 321 n.6 (1987) still exist as controlling law when "new' 1 Supreme Court decision in Davis was announced and appellant counsel refuse to raise claim by way of a Rule 28(j) letter to preserve issue on Direct Appeal?

Does Griffith v. Kentucky still exist as controlling law when the First Step Act [Section 403] and appellant counsel refuse to address the stacking of guns under [18 U.S.C. § 924(c)] while he was still on "direct appeal"?

Can Appellant Court find that appellant counsel provided "ineffective assistance on direct appeal" under a motion to "Recall Mandate"?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 require notice to client for writ of certiorari?

Docket Entries

2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-09
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-06-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 6, 2020)

Attorneys

Preston Pope
Preston Pope — Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent