No. 18-6447
Eullis Monroe Goodwin v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: career-offender criminal-procedure due-process ineffective-assistance rule-11 sentencing sentencing-guidelines strickland-standard strickland-v-washington
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2018-11-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did Counsel's Failure to properly develope and present Objections to Petitioner's designation as an career offender, render Ineffective Assistance under Strickland v Washington
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED = 1. Did Counsel's Failure to properly develope and present Objections to Petitioner's designation | as an career offender, render Ineffective Assistance under Strickland v Washington. 2. Did Counsel Failure to present the District Court with additional sentencing options under USSG§ 3B1.2(a) or 3B1.2(b) rise to the level of deficiency to render counsel ineffective. 3.Did District Court's remarks during chane of plea hearing violate Rule 11 Fed.R.Crim.P and | ‘voilate Petitioners Due Process.
Docket Entries
2018-12-03
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.
2018-11-05
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-06-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 26, 2018)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent