No. 19-7876
Aaron Richardson v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 8th-amendment constitutional-rights criminal-procedure cruel-and-unusual-punishment due-process equal-protection judicial-bias judicial-discretion sentencing sentencing-guidelines
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-04-03
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did an unconstitutional 'objective risk of bias' or 'probability of actual bias on the part of the judge' manifest itself during the sentencing hearing?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED I. Did an unconstitutional “objective risk of bias,” Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899, 1905 (2016), or “probability of actual bias on the part of the judge,” Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905, 907 (2017), manifest itself during the sentencing hearing, in which the judge said someone like petitioner should “be eliminated from the world” and the guideline range “shock[ed] the conscience,” and then imposed a sentence almost five times longer than the guideline maximum?
Docket Entries
2020-04-06
Petition DENIED.
2020-03-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/3/2020.
2020-03-12
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-03-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 3, 2020)
Attorneys
Aaron Richardson
Milton Gordon Widenhouse Jr. — Rudolf Widenhouse, Petitioner
Milton Gordon Widenhouse Jr. — Rudolf Widenhouse, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent