No. 20-5775
Natalie Angeles v. United States
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: acceptance-of-responsibility criminal-procedure harm-analysis judicial-coercion presentence-report sentencing structural-error
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-01-08
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does a district court coerce the Defendant to withdraw her objections to findings in the Presentence Report where the court informs the Defendant that those objections may lead to the denial of acceptance of responsibility points?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Does a district court coerce the Defendant to withdraw her objections to findings in the Presentence Report where the court informs the Defendant that those objections may lead to the denial of acceptance of responsibility points? Relatedly, should such judicial coercion be treated as a structural error immune from harm analysis?
Docket Entries
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-07
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2020-11-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 7, 2020.
2020-11-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 6, 2020 to December 7, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-10-07
Response Requested. (Due November 6, 2020)
2020-10-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.
2020-09-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-09-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 23, 2020)
Attorneys
Natalie Angeles
Pia Lederman — Lederman Law Firm, Petitioner
Pia Lederman — Lederman Law Firm, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent