No. 21-7445
Juniel B. Rios v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: apprendi-rule apprendi-v-new-jersey constitutional-law criminal-procedure due-process federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure procedural-due-process sentencing sentencing-guidelines substantive-reasonableness upward-variance
Latest Conference:
2022-04-22
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether Constitutional Due Process requires that Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008) that limited the Notice requirement in Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(h) to Upward Departures be extended to Upward Variances.
2. Whether Procedural and Substantive Due Process were violated when a Sentencing Court applied a factor listed in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) to Enhance a Sentence in Violation of an Express Guideline Provision and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and that Rendered the Sentence Substantively Unreasonable.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Constitutional Due Process requires that Irizarry-v-United-States be extended to Upward-Variances
Docket Entries
2022-04-25
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/22/2022.
2022-03-29
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-02-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 25, 2022)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent