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
Latest Conference:
2019-05-16
Question Presented (from Petition)
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?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the District Court use an incorrect criminal history category to sentence Ms. Hedspeth?
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
Hedspeth
Mark Diamond — Attorney at Law, Petitioner
USA
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent