No. 20-5771
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeal-waiver due-process miscarriage-of-justice procedural-reasonableness sentencing statutory-maximum substantive-reasonableness
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-10-30
Question Presented (from Petition)
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S OVERT CONSIDERATION OF THE EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF AN APPEAL WAIVER PRIOR TO VARYING UPWARD TO THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE RESULTED IN A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND A PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE SENTENCE?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
whether-the-trial-court's-overt-consideration-of-the-existence-and-nature-of-an-appeal-waiver-prior-to-varying-upward-to-the-statutory-maximum-sentence-resulted-in-a-miscarriage-of-justice-and-a-procedurally-and-substantively-unreasonable-sentence?
Docket Entries
2020-11-02
Petition DENIED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2020-10-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.
2020-09-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-09-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 26, 2020)
Attorneys
Taveon Nixon
Thomas Reston Wilson — Greene, Wilson & Crow P.A., Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent