No. 18-8521
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 8th-amendment criminal-procedure due-process felon-in-possession firearm-offense ineffective-assistance obstruction-enhancement sentencing-guidelines sentencing-variance substantive-reasonableness upward-variance
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-04-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the sentencing court's upward variance from 71 months to 84 months for felon in possession of a firearm was substantively unreasonable
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. WHETHER THE SENTENCING COURT'S UPWARD VARIANCE FROM 71 MONTHS TO 84 MONTHS FOR FELON IN POSSESSION OF A ; FIREARM WAS SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE II. WHETHER THE OBSTRUCTION ENHANCEMENT WAS UNWARRANTED AND EMPHATICALLY OVERLY PUNITIVE III. WHETHER APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ADDRESS TRIAL COUNSEL"S FAILURE TO MANDATE A NON-UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT (4) |
Docket Entries
2019-04-29
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
2019-04-02
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-01-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 22, 2019)
Attorneys
Angel Galan
Angel Galan — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent