No. 20-6337
Tramaine Standberry v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: acquitted-conduct crime-of-violence criminal-law district-court-discretion due-process guidelines-interpretation jury-trial sentencing sentencing-enhancement unconstitutional upward-variance
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-01-15
Related Cases:
20-6540
(Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the jury convict Mr. Standberry for a crime of violence that this Court has held is unconstitutional?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Did the jury convict Mr. Standberry for a crime of violence that this Court has held is unconstitutional? 2. Was the district court’s upward variance from the Guidelines that doubled Mr. Standberry’s sentence inequitable as punishment for acquitted and uncharged conduct? 3. Did the district court incorrectly impose a four-level enhancement for de minimis movement of a victim during a robbery? 4
Docket Entries
2021-01-19
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/15/2021.
2020-12-02
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-11-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 16, 2020)
Attorneys
Tramaine Standberry
Mark Diamond — Attorney at Law, Petitioner
Mark Diamond — Attorney at Law, Petitioner
United States of America
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent