No. 19-8261
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review circuit-split criminal-conviction criminal-procedure due-process evidentiary-sufficiency judicial-standard standard-of-review substantial-evidence sufficiency-of-evidence united-states-v-rahseparian
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-05-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the United States Court of Appeals properly applied the 'substantial evidence' test in concluding there was sufficient evidence to affirm Petitioner's convictions?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Whether the United States Court of Appeals properly applied the “substantial evidence” test in concluding there was sufficient evidence to affirm Petitioner’s convictions? Il. Whether the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming Petitioner’s convictions conflicts with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Rahseparian, 231 F.3d 1257 (10 Cir. 2000)? i
Docket Entries
2020-05-18
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.
2020-04-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-04-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 15, 2020)
Attorneys
Sean Ath
Louis Hart Lang — Callison Tighe & Robinson LLC, Petitioner
Louis Hart Lang — Callison Tighe & Robinson LLC, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent