No. 20-5380
Antonio Deshawn Pitt v. United States
Tags: bank-robbery criminal-procedure criminal-sentencing cruel-and-unusual-punishment due-process judicial-discretion mental-health proportionality proportionality-principle sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether a district court's statutory obligation to consider the "history and circumstances" of a criminal defendant and to refrain from imposing a sentence "greater than necessary" prohibits a district court from imposing a 125-month sentence for a bank robbery on a defendant with severe mental illness.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a district court's statutory obligation to consider the 'history and circumstances' of a criminal defendant and to refrain from imposing a sentence 'greater than necessary' prohibits a district court from imposing a 125-month sentence for a bank robbery on a defendant with severe mental illness
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-08-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-08-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 16, 2020)
Attorneys
Antonio Deshawn Pitt
Eric Joseph Brignac — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent