No. 18-9010
Joel Augutuk Mayokok v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion appellate-review criminal-procedure due-process judicial-error re-sentencing sentence-reasonableness sentencing sentencing-discretion sentencing-guidelines substantive-reasonableness unsupported-enhancement
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Immigration
SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-05-23
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the District Court's decision at re-sentencing to re-impose the same 240-month sentence it initially imposed, where the Court had erred in its initial sentencing by applying an unsupported five-level enhancement, result in a substantively unreasonable sentence, constituting an abuse of discretion?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED I. Did the District Court’s decision at re-sentencing to re-impose the same 240-month sentence it initially imposed, where the Court had erred in its initial sentencing by applying an unsupported five-level enhancement, result in a substantively unreasonable sentence, constituting an abuse of discretion?
Docket Entries
2019-05-28
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.
2019-05-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-04-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 28, 2019)
Attorneys
Joel Mayokok
Mark Dennis Nyvold — Mark Nyvold, Attorney at Law, Petitioner
Mark Dennis Nyvold — Mark Nyvold, Attorney at Law, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent