No. 19-6555
Courtney Johnson v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: ability-to-pay appointed-counsel criminal-procedure due-process fine-imposition fines indigent-defendant judicial-discretion sentencing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-12-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a district court errs by imposing a fine upon an indigent defendant, represented by appointed counsel, without making any inquiry into the defendant's ability to pay a fine, where 18 U.S.C. § 3572 commands that the court 'shall consider' a defendant's ability to pay a fine
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WHETHER A DISTRICT COURT ERRS BY IMPOSING A FINE UPON AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT, REPRESENTED BY APPOINTED COUNSEL, WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY INTO THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO PAY A FINE, WHERE 18 U.S.C. § 3572 COMMANDS THAT THE COURT “SHALL CONSIDER” A DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO PAY A FINE. -i
Docket Entries
2019-12-09
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
2019-11-19
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-11-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 9, 2019)
Attorneys
Courtney Johnson
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent