No. 19-7234
Denzel Chisholm, aka Den, aka Din v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: anti-drug-abuse-act anti-drug-abuse-act-1986 anti-drug-abuse-act-of-1986 congressional-intent criminal-law criminal-sentencing drug-offense proportionality retail-level-manager sentencing sentencing-reasonableness statutory-interpretation substantive-reasonableness
Key Terms:
Privacy
Privacy
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a 342-month sentence for a retail-level manager is substantively reasonable where it far exceeds a sentence that properly accounts for Congress's intent under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Question Presented Whether a 342-month sentence for a retail-level manager is substantively reasonable where it far exceeds a sentence that properly accounts for Congress’s intent under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. 1
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-14
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-01-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 10, 2020)
Attorneys
Denzel Chisholm
Leonard E Milligan III — Milligan Rona Duran & King LLC, Petitioner
Leonard E Milligan III — Milligan Rona Duran & King LLC, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent