No. 19-6119
Masnik Sainmelus v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review criminal-sentencing district-court firearm-possession firearms guideline-enhancement guideline-range sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation u.s.s.g.-2k2.1
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-11-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court erred in increasing the appellant's guideline range by finding the offense involved 8-24 firearms under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(B)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether The District Court Erred When The Court Increased The Appellant’s Guideline Range Four Levels By Finding That The Offense Involved Between 8 and 24 firearms under U.S.S.G 2K2.1(b)(1)(B). 2s Whether The District Court Erred When The Court Increased The Appellant’s Guideline Range Four Levels By Finding That The Offense Involved Between 8 and 24 firearms under U.S.S.G 2K2.1(b)(1)(B).
Docket Entries
2019-11-12
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2019.
2019-10-09
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-09-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 31, 2019)
Attorneys
Sainmelus Masnik
Gregory Antonio Samms — Law Offices of Gregory A. Samms P.A., Petitioner
Gregory Antonio Samms — Law Offices of Gregory A. Samms P.A., Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent