No. 23-7821

Noe Rodriguez-Adorno v. United States

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2024-06-27
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: communications constitutional-rights criminal-procedure defense-counsel district-court impasse right-to-counsel sixth-amendment supervised-release
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Should certiorari be granted where defense counsel informed
the District Court he and Petitioner were at an impasse, and all
communications between the two had ceased, in violation of Petitioner's
Sixth Amendment right to counsel?

2. Should certiorari be granted because the District Court imposed
a special condition of supervised release that had no applicability to
Petitioner, which involved a greater deprivation of liberty than was
reasonably necessary?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Should certiorari be granted where defense counsel informed the District Court he and Petitioner were at an impasse, and all communications between the two had ceased, in violation of Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel?

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-07-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-01
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2024-07-01
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-06-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 29, 2024)

Attorneys

Noe Rodriguez-Adorno
Steven A. FeldmanFeldman & Feldman, Attorneys at Law, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent