No. 19-6485
Ryan Van Stevenson v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-waiver criminal-procedure discretion due-process due-process,appellate-waiver,abuse-of-discretion,s evidence-standard extrinsic-evidence judicial-discretion preponderance-of-the-evidence sentencing-enhancement
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-12-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Court abuse its discretion when it enforced an appellate waiver on an issue that was outside the scope of the appellate waiver's provisions?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Did the Court abuse it's discretion when it enforced an appellate waiver on an issue that was outside the scope of the appellate waiver's provisions? 2. Did the improper application of a sentencing enhancement without the presentation of any extrinsic evidence, and without proof by a preponderance of the evidence, violate Due Process? : \ .
Docket Entries
2019-12-09
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
2019-11-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-10-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 5, 2019)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent