No. 22-7192

Dan Pizarro v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-04-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: consecutive-sentences criminal-sentencing district-court-authority district-court-discretion federal-criminal-procedure federal-jurisdiction future-events future-sentence-commencement judicial-sentencing-power sentencing-authority setser-v-united-states
Latest Conference: 2023-05-18
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Does a district court exceed its authority by expressly or effectively ordering its sentence to run consecutively to a sentence in another federal case that has not yet been imposed? [The Court left this question open in Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 241 n.4 (2012).]

2. Does a district court exceed its authority by ordering its sentence to commence on a date far in the future (20 years in this case) or on an unknown date conditioned on some possible future event?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a district court exceed its authority by expressly or effectively ordering its sentence to run consecutively to a sentence in another federal case that has not yet been imposed?

Docket Entries

2023-05-22
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/18/2023.
2023-05-01
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-03-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 4, 2023)

Attorneys

Dan Pizarro
James H. LocklinFederal Public Defender , Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent