No. 21-5531

Garlin Raymond Farris v. United States

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-08-30
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: agency-principles appointed-counsel criminal-procedure due-process excusable-neglect indigent-defendant ineffective-assistance-of-counsel pioneer-investment-services procedural-hurdles sixth-amendment
Latest Conference: 2021-10-08
Question Presented (from Petition)

The question presented, on which the federal appellate courts are currently
divided, is whether appointed counsel's misconduct can serve as excusable neglect for
an indigent federal criminal defendant's late filing of a dispositive motion.

In Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited
Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), this Court outlined factors for assessing whether a
filing deadline may be extended for excusable neglect pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.
P. 45(b). Petitioner seeks to resolve the significant problems caused by the varying
applications of the Pioneer factors to indigent federal criminal defendants who face
procedural hurdles caused by their appointed counsel's ineffectiveness.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether appointed counsel's misconduct can serve as excusable neglect for an indigent federal criminal defendant's late filing of a dispositive motion

Docket Entries

2021-10-12
Petition DENIED.
2021-09-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.
2021-09-14
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-08-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 29, 2021)

Attorneys

Garlin Farris
Mark Andrew JonesBell, Davis & Pitt, PA, Petitioner
United States
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Respondent