No. 18-8825
Timeiki Hedspeth v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeal criminal-history criminal-procedure criminal-sentencing district-court due-process evidentiary-rulings fair-trial federal-sentencing-guidelines offense-level reasonable-doubt restitution sentencing sentencing-guidelines
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-05-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the District Court use an incorrect criminal history category to sentence Ms. Hedspeth?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Did the District Court use an incorrect criminal history category to sentence Ms. Hedspeth? 2. Did the District Court use an incorrect offense level to sentence Ms. Hedspeth? 3. Did the District Court improperly order Ms. Hedspeth to pay restitution? 4. Did a confluence of evidentiary rulings deprive Ms. Hedspeth of a fair trial? 5. Was Ms. Hedspeth not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? 4
Docket Entries
2019-05-20
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2019.
2019-04-24
Waiver of right of respondent USA to respond filed.
2019-04-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 15, 2019)
Attorneys
USA
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent