No. 20-6099
Malcolm Moore v. United States
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: criminal-law criminal-procedure direct-review due-process first-step-act judicial-discretion retroactivity sentencing sentencing-retroactivity statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy
Latest Conference:
2021-01-08
(distributed 2 times)
Related Cases:
20-6427
(Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Section 403 of the First Step Act of 2018 should apply to defendants whose convictions and sentences remain pending on direct review
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether Section 403 of the First Step Act of 2018, which is expressly titled a “clarification” of the penalty provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C), should apply to defendants who were sentenced before the enactment of the Act but whose convictions and sentences remain pending on direct review and, therefore, are not yet final. Whether counsel violates a defendant’s right to autonomy when the defendant intends to contest all of the government’s evidence and counsel stipulates without his consent to a jurisdictional element of the offense.
Docket Entries
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-11-19
Rescheduled.
2020-11-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.
2020-11-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-10-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 20, 2020)
Attorneys
Malcolm Moore
Linda Dale Hoffa — Dilworth Paxson LLP, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent