No. 24-5082

Adam Sprenger v. United States

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2024-07-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: change-in-law criminal-law due-process federal-statute legal-interpretation plea-agreement plea-bargaining sentencing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (from Petition)

[Brief explanation of question] A defendant who him
or herself alone engages in sexually explicit
conduct without a minor's engagement is indicted
for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).

Question :1.
Have the federal courts misinterpreted
and misapplied 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) et. seq. to en
-** encompass conduct neither proscribed nor enumerated:■• i
in 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) et. seq.?

[Brief explanation of question] A defendant
stipulates to a stipulated offense conduct (as if
he or she were convicted of the other offense) in a
plea agreement. Subsequent to this, there is a
change in law.

Question:2.
Can a stipulation to a stipulated
offense conduct in a plea agreement remain
enforceable after a change in law?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Have the federal courts misinterpreted and misapplied 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) et. seq. to encompass conduct neither proscribed nor enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) et. seq.?

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-29
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2024-07-29
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-06-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 15, 2024)

Attorneys

Adam Sprenger
Adam Sprenger — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent