No. 20-5645
Virgil Nickens v. United States
Tags: appellate-courts criminal-law federal-courts federal-courts-of-appeals jury-instructions jury-verdict plain-error-review rehaif-standard rehaif-v-united-states united-states-v-olano
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-06-17
(distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can the appellate courts' divergent approaches to plain error review of pre-Rehaif jury verdicts be reconciled with one another?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
question presented is: Can the appellate courts’ divergent approaches to plain error review of pre-Rehaifjury verdicts be reconciled with one another? Are the federal Courts of Appeals applying plain error review in a manner that is contrary to this Court’s precedent in United States v. Olano, 507 US. 725 (1993)? ii
Docket Entries
2021-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2020-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-14
Rescheduled.
2020-12-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-11-13
Memorandum of respondent United States of America filed.
2020-11-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 13, 2020.
2020-11-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 12, 2020 to November 13, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-10-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 12, 2020.
2020-10-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 13, 2020 to November 12, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-09-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 13, 2020)
Attorneys
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Virgil Nickens