No. 18-29
Shailendra Bhawnani, et al. v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, et al.
Tags: criminal-procedure criminal-restitution fraud judicial-discretion legal-scope mandatory-victims-restitution-act restitution statutory-interpretation victim-compensation victim-definition
Key Terms:
Arbitration JusticiabilityDoctri
Arbitration JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2018-11-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the definition of 'victim' under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(2), includes all victims directly and proximately harmed by the same scheme, conspiracy, or pattern as the offense of conviction
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the definition of “victim” under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(2), includes all victims directly and proximately harmed by the same scheme, conspiracy, or pattern as the offense of conviction.
Docket Entries
2018-11-13
Petition DENIED.
2018-10-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2018.
2018-10-19
Reply of petitioners Shailendra Bhawnani, et al. filed.
2018-10-05
Brief of Federal Respondent in opposition filed.
2018-08-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 5, 2018.
2018-08-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 5, 2018 to October 5, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-08-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 5, 2018.
2018-08-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 6, 2018 to September 5, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-07-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 6, 2018)
Attorneys
USDC ED NY, et al.
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent