No. 20-6363
Andres Fernando Cabezas v. United States
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: actual-innocence appellate-review civil-procedure due-process magistrate magistrate-recommendation plain-error plea-agreement report-and-recommendation statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Privacy
Privacy
Latest Conference:
2021-03-26
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a district court commits plain error by not waiting the fourteen days allotted by 28 U.S.C. § 636 prior to adopting a magistrate's Report and Recommendation
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED . . Whether a district court commits plain error by not waiting the fourteen . days allotted by 28 U.S.C. § 636 prior to adopting a magistrate's Report and Recommendation. Did the appellate court err in relying on unsworn attorney statements to affirm the conviction and defeat claims of actual innocence? Is there a miscarriage of justice exemption to plea agreement appellate review waivers? i
Docket Entries
2021-03-29
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-03-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.
2021-02-05
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-02
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-11-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 17, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent