No. 20-6309
Emilio Urena-Villa v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-claim constitutional-law counsel-performance criminal-procedure fourth-amendment ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel kimmelman-v-morrison motion-to-suppress strickland-standard strickland-v-washington
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities
SocialSecurity Securities
Latest Conference:
2021-01-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether appointed counsel was ineffective for failure to file viable motion to suppress pursuant to Fourth Amendment claim
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. WHETHER APPOINTED COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, FOR FAILURE TO FILE VIABLE MOTION TO SUPPRESS PURSUANT TO FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM UNDER: KIMMELMAN v. MORRISON, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) AND STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668
Docket Entries
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-11-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-10-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 14, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent