No. 20-7207
Manuel de Jesus Gordillo-Escandon v. United States
Tags: criminal-indictment criminal-procedure due-process interstate-agreement-detainers interstate-agreement-on-detainers-act judicial-procedure jurisdiction speedy-trial-act statutory-interpretation trial-timing
Latest Conference:
2021-06-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Did the district court err when it failed to dismiss the indictment under the Speedy Trial Act ("STA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174, when the trial did not begin within the 70 days required under the STA?
2. Did the district court err when it failed to dismiss the indictment under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act ("IADA"), P.L. 91-538 (Dec. 9, 1970), amended by Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, P.L. 100-690, Title VII, § 7059, 102 Stat. 4403 (Nov. 18, 1988), available at 18 U.S.C. Appx. 2, even IADA?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the district court err in failing to dismiss the indictment under the Speedy Trial Act and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act?
Docket Entries
2021-06-14
Petition DENIED.
2021-05-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/10/2021.
2021-05-25
Reply of petitioner Manuel de Jesus Gordillo-Escandon filed. (Distributed)
2021-05-10
Brief of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
2021-04-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 10, 2021.
2021-04-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 26, 2021 to May 10, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-03-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 26, 2021.
2021-03-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 24, 2021 to April 26, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-01-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 24, 2021)
Attorneys
Manuel de Jesus Gordillo-Escandon
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent