No. 18-8239
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review court-of-appeals criminal-procedure crosby-remand district-court intervening-change-in-law jacobson-remand law-of-the-case law-of-the-case-doctrine manifest-injustice new-evidence reasonableness reasonableness-review resentencing sentencing
Key Terms:
Securities Immigration
Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-03-29
Related Cases:
18-7944
(Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court erred in declining to resentence the defendant-Petitioner on remand
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW On a Crosby remand, the district court decided not to resentence the defendants. On a Jacobson remand, the district court again decided not to resentence the defendants. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed a decision not to resentence for reasonableness. Did the Court of Appeals err when it decided that the district court acted reasonably when it declined to resentence the 2
Docket Entries
2019-04-01
Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2019-03-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2019.
2019-03-08
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-02-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 3, 2019)
Attorneys
Negus Thomas
David J. Wenc — Baram, Tapper & Gans, LLC, Petitioner
David J. Wenc — Baram, Tapper & Gans, LLC, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent