No. 18-9735
Carlton Darden v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-3582 criminal-sentencing dillion-v-united-states district-court-authority due-process evidence judicial-discretion judicial-review new-evidence offense-conduct sentencing-guidelines sentencing-modification statutory-interpretation united-states-sentencing-guidelines united-states-v-adams ussg-1b1.10
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does 18 USC 3582(c)(2) after Dillion give a district court authority to make additional finding as to offense conduct attributable to a defendant based on new evidence outside the record and that conflicts with the findings made by the original sentencing Court?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Does 18 USC 3582(c)(2) after Dillion give a district corut authority to make additional finding as to offense conduct attributable to a defendant based ; on new evidence outside the record and that conflicts with the findings made by the original sentencing Court? : Dillion v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) : United States v. Adams 104 F. 3d 1028 (8th Cir. 1997) . 18 USC 3582(c)(2) . : USSG 1B1.10 : oO . | :
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-07-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-26
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-06-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 19, 2019)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent