No. 20-5771
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeal-waiver due-process miscarriage-of-justice procedural-reasonableness sentencing statutory-maximum substantive-reasonableness
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-10-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)
whether-the-trial-court's-overt-consideration-of-the-existence-and-nature-of-an-appeal-waiver-prior-to-varying-upward-to-the-statutory-maximum-sentence-resulted-in-a-miscarriage-of-justice-and-a-procedurally-and-substantively-unreasonable-sentence?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S OVERT CONSIDERATION OF THE EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF AN APPEAL WAIVER PRIOR TO VARYING UPWARD TO THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE RESULTED IN A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND A PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE SENTENCE? 1
Docket Entries
2020-11-02
Petition DENIED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2020-10-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.
2020-09-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-09-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 26, 2020)
Attorneys
Taveon Nixon
Thomas Reston Wilson — Greene, Wilson & Crow P.A., Petitioner
Thomas Reston Wilson — Greene, Wilson & Crow P.A., Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent