No. 22-6502
Jerry Joseph Higdon, Jr. v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review circuit-court constitutional-interpretation criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus jurisdiction jurisdictional-challenge procedural-bar sentencing sentencing-guidelines
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2023-02-17
Question Presented (from Petition)
I.
IS
THE
UNITED
STATES
COURT
OF
APPEALS
FOR
THE
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT USING
ITS
PROCEDURAL BAR
RULES
IN
MANNER
INCONSISTENT
WITH
THE
UNITED
STATES
CONSTITUTION AND WITH
ITS
OWN
PRECEDENT?
II. WHETHER PETITIONER'S
MOTION
TO
EXONERATE
DUE
TO
LACK OF JURISDICTION
WAS
TIME
BARRED?
III.
WHETHER
PETITIONER'S
1,380
MONTH
SENTENCE
OF
IMPRISONMENT
IS
UNREASONABLE
(GREATER
THAN
NECESSARY)
TO
SERVE
THE
PURPOSE
OF
SENTENCING
UNDER THE
PROVISIONS
OF
18
U.S.C. §3553(a)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is using its procedural bar rules in a manner inconsistent with the United States Constitution and with its own precedent
Docket Entries
2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-01-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-10-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 9, 2023)
Attorneys
Jerry Joseph Higdon
Jerry Joseph Higdon Jr. — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent