No. 22-6653
Jayson Montgomery v. United States
IFP
Tags: anti-kickback-statute circuit-split controlled-substances-act criminal-law due-process healthcare-fraud intent ruan-v-united-states subjective-intent
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Privacy ClassAction
SocialSecurity Privacy ClassAction
Latest Conference:
2023-06-01
Related Cases:
22-685
(Vide)
Question Presented (from Petition)
To convict a defendant of violating the anti-kickback statute, is the government required to establish that the accused intended to engage in unlawful conduct?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the government need to prove subjective intent for anti-kickback statute violations?
Docket Entries
2023-06-05
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/1/2023.
2023-05-15
Reply of petitioner Jayson Montgomery filed. (Distributed)
2023-03-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 26, 2023.
2023-03-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 29, 2023 to April 26, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-02-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 29, 2023.
2023-02-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 27, 2023 to March 29, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-01-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 27, 2023)
2022-11-16
Application (22A433) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until January 20, 2023.
2022-11-10
Application (22A433) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 23, 2022 to January 20, 2023, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.
Attorneys
Jayson Montgomery
Robert Dee Hobbs — Bell & Hobbs, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent