No. 22-6966
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: appellate-decisis constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process due-process-clause final-decisions grand-jury grand-jury-clause indictment jurisdiction statute-of-limitations
Latest Conference:
2023-06-22
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Question not identified.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court erred in refusing to address the merits of the petitioner's motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction
Docket Entries
2023-06-26
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2023-06-06
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/22/2023.
2023-05-13
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2023-05-01
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2023-04-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/28/2023.
2023-03-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-11-18
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 7, 2023)
Attorneys
Antwoyn Terrell Spencer
Antwoyn Spencer — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent