No. 19-5201
Kenneth Medenbach v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-3561 criminal-procedure criminal-sentencing criminal-sentencing-authority district-court-jurisdiction due-process jurisdiction probation probation-term sentencing-authority statutory-interpretation substantial-rights supervised-release
Key Terms:
Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the District Court err in finding that it has authority under 18 USC §3561(a)(3) to impose a sentence of six months imprisonment and a 5 year term of probation?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did the District Court err in finding that it has authority under 18 USC §3561(a)(3) to impose a sentence of six months imprisonment and a 5 year term of probation? Are Mr. Medenbach’s substantial rights affected because he remains on probation long after the statutorily authorized term of supervised release required by statute for a sentence of imprisonment would have expired?
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-24
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-01-02
Attorneys
Kenneth Medenbach
Matthew A Schindler — Law Office of Matthew Schindler, Petitioner
Matthew A Schindler — Law Office of Matthew Schindler, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent