No. 20-8284
Tags: appellate-court-split appellate-review criminal-justice due-process equal-protection extraordinary-reasons judicial-discretion section-3582 sentencing sentencing-disparity statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2022-01-07
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Is it fair and equal justice for defendants who present under that the previously harsh 924(c) stacking is an extraordinary and compelling reason deserving of relief be "Denied" in one Appellate Court, when the exact same issue is "Granted" in another Appellate Court?'; District Courts are split on the same question even in the same circuit with defendants of similar backgrounds.1)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is the application of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for relief from 924(c) stacking sentences being applied inconsistently across appellate courts?
Docket Entries
2022-01-10
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-12-02
Reply of petitioner Harold Gashe filed.
2021-11-12
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2021-10-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 12, 2021. See Rule 30.1
2021-10-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 12, 2021 to November 11, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-09-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 12, 2021.
2021-09-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 10, 2021 to October 12, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-08-11
Response Requested. (Due September 10, 2021)
2021-06-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-06-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-04-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 14, 2021)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent