No. 20-5909
David Conerly v. United States
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: appellate-review criminal-procedure district-court evidence evidence-review judicial-review ninth-circuit sentencing sentencing-guidelines standard-of-review
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-11-06
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Ninth Circuit err by mining the district record to uphold an upward adjustment to petitioner's offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — . Did the Ninth Circuit.err by mining the district. record to uphold an upward adjustment to petitioner’s offense level under the . Sentencing Guidelines? Should it instead have reviewed only the sufficiency of the evidence actually cited by the district court, the approach used by the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Hart, 324 F.3d ; . 740 (D.C. Cir. 2003), which better accords with the commands of the statutes governing the imposition and review of sentences? t & :
Docket Entries
2020-11-09
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.
2020-10-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-10-05
Motion (20M7) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal Granted.
2020-07-22
MOTION (20M7) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-08
Motion (20M7) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal filed.
2020-07-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 4, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent