No. 19-8667
Diamante Alfred v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: due-process individualized-sentencing judicial-bias judicial-discretion plea-bargaining recusal sentencing supervised-release supervision-violation
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does a district court fail to appropriately individualize a sentence where the sentence imposed is based on a 'promise' made by the judge, long before the supervision violation took place?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does a district court fail to appropriately individualize a sentence where the sentence imposed is based on a “promise” made by the judge, long before the supervision violation took place? 2. Must a court sua sponte recuse itself from issuing a sentence where it had predetermined the sentence long before the supervision violation on which the sentence is based took place?
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-06-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-22
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-06-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 13, 2020)
Attorneys
Diamante Alfred
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent