No. 18-9780
Christopher Hannigan v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-3551 component-parts criminal-procedure federal-rules federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure judgment judgment-parsing judicial-discretion rule-32 sentencing sentencing-rules statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the language of Rule 32(k) and 18 U.S.C. §3551 allow for the court to parcel the judgment into component parts?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED __ : Dé&s the language of Rule 32(k) and 18 U.S.C. §3551 allow for. the a, court to parcel the judgment into component..parts?
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-07-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-01
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2017-11-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 25, 2019)
Attorneys
Christopher Hannigan
Christopher Matthew Hannigan — Petitioner
Christopher Matthew Hannigan — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent