No. 20-5740

Edward Mahan v. United States

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-09-17
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-USC-3553a appeal criminal-procedure downward-adjustment drug-offense due-process government-misconduct plea-agreement safety-valve sentencing sentencing-guidelines
Latest Conference: 2020-10-16
Question Presented (from Petition)

DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO VIOLATE THE PLEA AGREEMENT?

DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY DENYING MR. MAHAN'S OBJECTION TO THE BASE OFFENSE LEVEL BASED ON DRUG AMOUNTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN?

DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY DENYING MR. MAHAN'S OBJECTION TO THE DENIAL OF A THREE-LEVEL DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT FOR ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY?

DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY DENYING MR. MAHAN'S OBJECTION TO THE DENIAL OF A DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT PURSUANT TO BECAUSE HE MET THE CRITERIA FOR "SAFETY VALVE"?

DID THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT IS GREATER THAN NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the district court err by allowing the government to violate the plea agreement?

Docket Entries

2020-10-19
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.
2020-09-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Main Document
2020-09-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 19, 2020)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetition

Attorneys

Edward Mahan
Amy R Blalock — Blalock Law Firm, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent