No. 22-7138
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure downward-variance due-process fifth-amendment jail-phone-calls motion-for-continuance sentencing sixth-amendment speedy-trial speedy-trial-act
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2023-04-21
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THAT ALI'S FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE NOT VIOLATED UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT.
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF ALI'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE?
3. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S ADMISSION OF JAIL PHONE CALLS?
4. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY NOT GRANTING ALI A DOWNWARD VARIANCE?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming that Ali's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were not violated under the Speedy Trial Act
Docket Entries
2023-04-24
Petition DENIED.
2023-04-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/21/2023.
2023-03-31
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-02-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 28, 2023)
Attorneys
Muzammil Ali
Muzammil Ali — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent