No. 18-5896

Beverly Allen Baker v. United States

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-09-05
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: appellate-procedure civil-rights confrontation-clause conspiracy criminal-procedure double-jeopardy due-process ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel multiple-conspiracies sentencing sentencing-guidelines sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2019-03-01 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the government committed a Kotteakos violation by using evidence of multiple conspiracies to support an indictment for a single conspiracy

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED \. Showld BAS cov exercise YS Super visecy authority to reverse Nig Bakers cangpiracy comvichon ® : 7 By the end th trial, the government concluded that “Ave” agreeMents exsted, rather than the Single Agreement chatged in the Indic Ment, Constructyely amending Are Wdictrrent. , a) Did the goverament™ commit & KolteakoS exrac la USiNg evidence “oF mauttple censpiracies 4a Support an wndickment, _ for a Single Canspacy P Korreakos vilnited Slates 338 U-S. ce TSO, WT IT, Le S.G.1a3y C1) + Urored States v. Lager T4e F.3d O90 LAAN Ge, aO19). a : DY Did the Riading ot “Swe” agceements Warrant a seahe Unanimcty Lasiuchon | if Se did the courts Sarture to sua Spuve give Such Ustruchen Create the SK of a nonunani, mous Verdict aS granted by Arncle Than2d , and the Sith Amendment of Fre United? States Conshtuhon. United States VG Vey B34 Fad (Oe \Ala-\S (44h ae, \48%). , 2. Under Roe v. Pores Ortega 588 U.SNT0, ATSB, (20 S. CA 1024 (2000) Appellate, | “ Coungel WAS apt ak Woerty +t disregard the appellate wWithes of Nig baker | avd Nir Nitrano \islate her ahcth Amendment Fide +e eSeclive ___ BoStance oF Counsel by abandoning her wishes on direct appeal’? er appeal would Key have | mexcke Redeiguer Vv. acted Stakes 3% U.S. 387, 330, 84.9.6. TIS Lida) 3, Putledge ve Werted Stakes 511 W-3.A9Q, tle SCH. AAV Ciaate) , holds Maat Cumulative punishment (Ss unauthorized by Congress , NS baker reCTT EL CIT BOF EGTA SAVENTR TCA AG SIO CAINS AIAG BET Such Sentence. Une Court algo senbeneed hee ko cancurrent berms ©. OF BHO manthS om the Same counts -tweeleven vialakon of the double jenpary clause. Did The Fourth Gireuit commit a Rutledge esvvor? NWas Vee district Court sequiced +o hypothetical specify drug quartry , at Sentencing nearing © orkedd States \. Patterson QO" U.S, hoe LEXIS \BOW_ CH cir) : , TH 30 did Ws Sauce 40 Speaty Bllow ne Astrick courte be Consider On “the record the applicable guideline range, under V5.6. adil? Os a 5 Dees vhe remedy ta Marta NRyan S&e &S.\ MENT, 12 S.Gn Se Wow’) and Trevine Vv. ~ Thaler 153 S.Cr (AU GAN (May ag abis)y Excuse any procedural defaults barang Ms Seker's jndfhechve assistance Counsel clairnS Strom bet ng heard on Wether counsel wads ian (Meckhve at Senbending Stage & Tf go, 1S Mo Gaker entitled ‘p have ; Suu Scope & her ineStechve Assistance oF counsel clams coandidered ; “hak were preSemted in her aad. lo. Did he sounder at wocelated charges Aa\law an Umper prossible, gt SUPiTg OF USS.B. SDV. AlDMhe quideines Wit relevant canduct ty ads “that beracred during Hhe camensaon of The cifense oF convichen }\ rcludiag ay reasonably Soreseeable acts of others in Surtherance of the Joi My und er taken , / Seema) ach uty that dccusred duricg the CormnmniSSion af Hae offense OF trwietten ,(U.SS.& Vo. Did She rmsyoinder aNow NS Baker Oo be ; punished tusice Sor Counts We “rough eleven? 1. Did tne Four Cirenu \wolate Mea Baker's due er eces> wg int vihere ; t+ Farled to comely worn The Fequrrermests of 1S USSC 355 40a), Ub) 5 and () ? , g, Should Me. Bakes Criminal Judgment Soe Ceenter yo permet tne Fed. “ Wee, Abed Reece period to run anew , as other L Aedendane SSuat Course of Sudical proceedings a a\ow ees ays POAT tight oO af meantag+ut een BON Dn tna 4. Did course's Salure +0 cha lenge ‘ne. sufFiciensy GF Lhe evidence inherently Waive — Bakker’ Tight to challenge “he consktik) onaltty v%& her conspifacy Conyvichon ° mn OROUId ANS Court Svertusa United States v. maker B\oaast -®D and Fe guire Ane goverament Xs QLONE Abe & acted in : concert" element or CON Fhe courk disregard tWe Nelding WM YotbeaKos v. United States 32g &.S.T90,T18 CAXe) and allow Baker to be Comics d ee 8 Seagle, Conspiracy wased on eyidence at mutbiole, Congpiracies 3 . p Ar a the Fourth Creat exe When et disregarded ne halding wm : faedge v. Rested ass GAUSS, TAL AR) End. Concluded thal” Baker SANS monk Sentence iq Aldition +0 the Aggregated sentence? . AR, Did Rpprendi vi News Jersey 530 U.S: Abel inalding an AM

Docket Entries

2019-03-04
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-02-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.
2018-10-25
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2018-10-09
Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2018-09-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
2018-09-12
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-03-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 5, 2018)

Attorneys

Beverly Allen Baker
Beverly Allen Baker — Petitioner
Beverly Allen Baker — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent