No. 19-7663
Ryan Douglas LaSalle v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review categorical-analysis congressional-definition criminal-procedure federal-regulations guidelines guidelines-miscalculation plain-error regulatory-definition sentencing statutory-interpretation taylor-categorical-analysis taylor-v-united-states
Key Terms:
Patent
Patent
Latest Conference:
2020-03-20
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can a court of appeals successfully avoid undertaking plain error review of a Guidelines miscalculation by relying on a federal regulatory definition instead of the Congressional definition of an offense element analyzed under the Taylor categorical analysis and affirm because the novelty of the Taylor analysis precludes plain error?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Can a court of appeals successfully avoid undertaking plain error review of a Guidelines miscalculation by relying on a federal regulatory definition instead of the Congressional definition of an offense element analyzed under the Taylor categorical analysis and affirm because the novelty of the Taylor analysis precludes plain error? 2
Docket Entries
2020-03-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-03-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-02-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-02-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 23, 2020)
Attorneys
Ryan Douglas LaSalle
John Palmer Rhodes — Federal Defenders of Montana, Petitioner
John Palmer Rhodes — Federal Defenders of Montana, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent