No. 19-7624
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: acceptance-of-responsibility burden-of-proof criminal-procedure due-process eighth-amendment excessive-fines excessive-fines-clause fatico-hearing sentencing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-10-09
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the District Court violated Petitioner's Due Process Rights
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; I. Whether the District Court violated Petitioner's Due Process Rights when it erroneously found that the Government had ' sustained its burden of proof as to disputed allegations — adduced at a Fatico hearing? . II. Whether the District Court violated Petitioner's Due Process Rights when, after Petitioner's unsuccessful, good-faith ; ; challenge to facts adduced at a Fatico hearing, it withdrew : previously-credited points for acceptance of responsibility? III. Whether the forfeiture order imposed on Petitioner violated hey the Excessive Fines Clause of the Highth Amendment to the : United States Constitution? : / (iii)
Docket Entries
2020-10-13
Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing filed by petitioner DENIED.
2020-09-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
2020-07-10
Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing filed by petitioner.
2020-03-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-02-19
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-01-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 13, 2020)
Attorneys
Jerome Shaw
Jerome W. Shaw — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent