No. 22-5941
Albert L. Watson v. Stu Sherman, Warden, et al.
IFP
Tags: constitutional-provisions criminal-procedure due-process en-banc-hearing ninth-circuit penal-code procedural-rules reasoned-opinion sixth-amendment state-law state-penal-code
Key Terms:
Immigration
Immigration
Latest Conference:
2023-01-06
Question Presented (from Petition)
I.
WAS THE DISTRICT COURT'S USE OF STATE PENAL CODE
JUSTIFYING VIOLATION OF SIX AMENDMENT A CORRECT
APPLICATION OF STATE LAW ?
II.
WAS THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S FAILURE TO ISSUE A REASONED
OPINION DIRECTLY RELATING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS UNDER PURCELL v. GONZALEZ, U.S. 1,
III.
DID THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S EN BANC HEARING IMPROPERLY
USE AND APPLY RULE 27-10 and General Order 6.11 IN
ITS RULING, UNDER HENRY v. RyAtf 766 F. 3d 1059.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was the district court's use of state penal code justifying violation of sixth amendment correct
Docket Entries
2023-01-09
Petition DENIED.
2022-12-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
2022-10-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 28, 2022)
Attorneys
Albert L. Watson
Albert L. Watson — Petitioner