No. 18-6927
IFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion criminal-procedure criminal-sentencing federal-courts judicial-discretion plea-agreement plea-bargaining retroactivity rule-11 sentencing-amendment sentencing-guidelines sentencing-reform statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-03-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the lower courts abused their discretion by denying petitioner Urbina relief under the 782 Amendment due to his being the beneficiary of a Rule 11 C plea agreement
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WHETHER IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT HOLDING IN HUGHES V. UNITED STATES (CITATIONS OMITTED), THE LOWER COURTS ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION BY DENYING PETITIONER URBINA RELIEF, UNDER THE 782 AMENDMENT, BY REASON OF HIS BEING THE BENEFICIARY OF A RULE 11 C PLEA AGREEMENT. . i ;
Docket Entries
2019-03-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2019-02-06
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-01-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 6, 2019.
2019-01-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 7, 2019 to February 6, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-11-06
Petition for a writ of prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 7, 2019)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent