No. 19-7979

Leo Chadwick v. United States

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-03-12
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: animal-fighting animal-rights constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process equal-protection judicial-bias pre-sentence-report recusal sentencing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2020-05-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a judge's statements demonstrating extreme bias against pit bull owners as a class and advocating the elimination of anyone involved in dogfighting requires recusal on constitutional or statutory grounds in an animal fighting case

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED IL Whether A Judge’ Statements Demonstrating Extreme Bias Against Pit Bull Owners as a Class And Advocating the Elimination of Anyone Involved in Dogfighting Requires Recusal On Constitutional Or Statutory Grounds in an Animal Fighting Case. I. Whether a Trial Court’s Failure to Enquire Whether the Defendant Read and Discussed A Pre-Sentence Report with his Attorney In Violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(A) Requires Resentencing Under a Bright Line Rule When Prejudice to a Criminal Defendant Results. i

Docket Entries

2020-05-04
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2020.
2020-04-10
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-03-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 13, 2020)

Attorneys

Leo Chadwick
Seth Allen NeyhartLaw Office of Seth A. Neyhart, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent