No. 20-5335
Dustin Johnson v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure criminal-sentencing due-process equal-protection fifth-amendment fourteenth-amendment methamphetamine methamphetamine-sentencing sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)
Issue I
Whether the District Court erred in sentencing the Defendant based on ice ("actual" methamphetamine) rather than a mixture and substance containing a detectable quantity of methamphetamine, to which the Defendant had plead guilty?
Issue II
Whether sentencing the Appellant on the "ice" or "methamphetamine actual" guidelines violates the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the District Court erred in sentencing the Defendant based on ice (\'actual\' methamphetamine) rather than a mixture and substance containing a detectable quantity of methamphetamine, to which the Defendant had plead guilty?
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-08-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-08-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 11, 2020)
Attorneys
Dustin Johnson
Alfred Christian Lanier III — Attorney at Law, Petitioner
United States of America
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent