No. 18-9063
Tyrone Leonard James v. United States
Tags: 18-usc-3553 18-usc-3584 18-usc-924c 18-usc-924c3b certificate-of-appealability concurrent-sentences concurrent-sentences,federal-sentencing,state-sent Does the Supreme Court's grant of writ of certiora federal-criminal-procedure federal-sentencing judicial-consideration sentencing-discretion sentencing-factors state-sentencing statutory-interpretation supreme-court-rule-10 third-circuit unrelated-crimes vagueness
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-05-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a district court's finding that a state crime and federal crime were unrelated is sufficient, in itself, to satisfy its obligation under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) to 'consider ... the factors set forth in section 3553(a)' when deciding whether to run a federal sentence concurrently with a state sentence
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a district court’s finding that a state crime and federal crime were unrelated is sufficient, in itself, to satisfy its obligation under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) to “consider ... the factors set forth in section 3553(a)” when deciding whether to run a federal sentence concurrently with a state sentence.
Docket Entries
2019-06-03
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.
2019-05-10
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-04-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 31, 2019)
Attorneys
Tyrone James
Eric Joseph Brignac — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Eric Joseph Brignac — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent