No. 19-6890

Kevin Lamont Pearson v. United States

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-12-10
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: district-court due-process federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure final-revocation-hearing magistrate-judge probable-cause procedural-review revocation-hearing rule-32.1 standing
Key Terms:
CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: 2020-01-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the plain text of Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure bar a district court from considering an alleged violation at a final revocation hearing when a magistrate judge determines it lacks probable cause?

Question Presented (from Petition)

Question Presented for Review Expressed in the Terms and Circumstances of the Case. Does the plain text of Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure bar a district court from considering an alleged violation at a final revocation hearing when a magistrate judge determines it lacks probable cause? 2 (b) List of all

Docket Entries

2020-01-21
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.
2019-12-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Main Document
2019-12-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 9, 2020)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionAppendixProof of Service

Attorneys

Kevin Lamont Pearson
Kyle Edward Wackenheim — Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Oklahoma, Petitioner
Kyle Edward Wackenheim — Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Oklahoma, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent