No. 18-6447

Eullis Monroe Goodwin v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-10-26
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: career-offender criminal-procedure due-process ineffective-assistance rule-11 sentencing sentencing-guidelines strickland-standard strickland-v-washington
Key Terms:
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

Eullis Goodwin
Eullis Goodwin — Petitioner
Eullis Goodwin — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent