No. 20-5122
Maximo Flores-Lezama v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-3583(e) criminal-conduct criminal-punishment due-process precedents punishment revocation sentencing statutory-interpretation supervised-release
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a supervised release revocation sentence may be imposed to punish a defendant for his underlying criminal conduct, or whether a punitive revocation sentence violates 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and this Court's precedents stating that supervised release is not intended as a punishment?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a supervised release revocation sentence may be imposed to punish a defendant for his underlying criminal conduct, or whether a punitive revocation sentence violates 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and this Court’s precedents stating that supervised release is not intended as a punishment? pretix
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-27
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-07-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 20, 2020)
Attorneys
Maximo Flores-Lezama
Kristi A. Hughes — Law Office of Kristi A. Hughes, Petitioner
Kristi A. Hughes — Law Office of Kristi A. Hughes, Petitioner
United States of America
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent