No. 20-6309
Emilio Urena-Villa v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-claim constitutional-law counsel-performance criminal-procedure fourth-amendment ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel kimmelman-v-morrison motion-to-suppress strickland-standard strickland-v-washington
Latest Conference:
2021-01-08
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. WHETHER APPOINTED COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, FOR FAILURE TO
FILE VIABLE MOTION TO SUPPRESS PURSUANT TO FOURTH AMENDMENT
CLAIM UNDER: KIMMELMAN v. MORRISON , 477 U.S. 365 (1986) AND
STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON , 466 U.S. 668 (1984) RESPECTIVELY?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether appointed counsel was ineffective for failure to file viable motion to suppress pursuant to Fourth Amendment claim
Docket Entries
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-11-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-10-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 14, 2020)
Attorneys
Emilio Urena-Villa
Emilio Urena-Villa — Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent