No. 22-5348
Tags: abuse-of-discretion civil-procedure criminal-procedure due-process judicial-bias judicial-recusal motion-hearing prosecutorial-agreement recusal sentencing sentencing-discretion standing
Latest Conference:
2022-09-28
Question Presented (from Petition)
1) Whether the district court erred by denying defense counsel's oral motion for recusal of the district judge.
2) Whether the district court erred by refusing to lower Mr. Lee's sentence to the term of imprisonment agreed upon the prosecution, the probation officer and defense counsel.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court erred by denying defense counsel's oral motion for recusal of the district judge
Docket Entries
2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-08-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-08-19
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2022-08-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 14, 2022)
Attorneys
Clarence Lee
Michael Scott — Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent