No. 20-5740

Edward Mahan v. United States

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-09-17
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-USC-3553a appeal criminal-procedure downward-adjustment drug-offense due-process government-misconduct plea-agreement safety-valve sentencing sentencing-guidelines
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-10-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the district court err by allowing the government to violate the plea agreement?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ISSUE #1 DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO VIOLATE THE PLEA AGREEMENT ? ISSUE #2 DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY DENYING MR. MAHAN’S OBJECTION TO THE BASE OFFENSE LEVEL BASED ON DRUG AMOUNTS NOT SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN? ISSUE #3 DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY DENYING MR. MAHAN’S OBJECTION TO THE DENIAL OF A THREE-LEVEL DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT FOR ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY? ISSUE #4 DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY DENYING MR. MAHAN’S OBJECTION TO THE DENIAL OF A DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT PURSUANT TO BECAUSE HE MET THE CRITERIA FOR “SAFETY VALVE” ? ISSUE #5 DID THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT IS GREATER THAN NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)? ii

Docket Entries

2020-10-19
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.
2020-09-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-09-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 19, 2020)

Attorneys

Edward Mahan
Amy R BlalockBlalock Law Firm, Petitioner
Amy R BlalockBlalock Law Firm, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent