No. 24-7093

Alfred Velazquez v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-04-29
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: circuit-split criminal-procedure judicial-review presentence-report sentencing-error structural-error
Latest Conference: 2025-05-29
Question Presented (from Petition)

Did the Ninth Circuit's disposition of Petitioner's claim under Rule 32(i)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure conflict with the Sixth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Osborne, 291 F.3d 908, 911 (6" Cir.2002), which held contrarily that the district court's violating that provision by not inquiring whether the defendant had reviewed the Presentence Report with counsel is a structural error, resulting categorically in a remand for resentencing?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Ninth Circuit's disposition of Petitioner's claim under Rule 32(i)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure conflict with the Sixth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Osborne, which held that the district court's violating that provision by not inquiring whether the defendant had reviewed the Presentence Report with counsel is a structural error?

Docket Entries

2025-06-02
Petition DENIED.
2025-05-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/29/2025.
2025-05-07
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-05-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-04-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 29, 2025)

Attorneys

Alfred Velazquez
David Andrew SchlesingerJacobs & Schlesinger LLP, Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent