No. 18-5693
Arlow Antone Kay v. United States
Tags: making robust appellate review unnecessary appellate-review constitutional-interpretation criminal-procedure criminal-sentencing district-court district-court-discretion sentencing sentencing-guidelines united-states-v-booker
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2018-09-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Have the departure provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines been rendered 'obsolete' and 'superfluous' by this Court's opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), rendering robust appellate review of district courts' applications of these provisions unnecessary?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED Have the departure provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines been rendered “obsolete” and “superfluous” by this Court’s opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), rendering robust appellate review of district courts’ applications of these provisions unnecessary?
Docket Entries
2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-08-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-08-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 21, 2018)
Attorneys
Arlow Kay
Daniel Lee Kaplan — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Daniel Lee Kaplan — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent