No. 20-6406
Jeffrey Neal Cuddington v. United States
Tags: abuse-of-discretion appellate-review circuit-split history-and-characteristics preservation-of-error procedural-reasonableness sentencing sentencing-procedure substantive-reasonableness
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-01-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)
what-is-required-to-preserve-procedural-reasonableness-claim
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. In Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, this Court reserved whether a formal objection at the time of sentencing is required to preserve abuseof-discretion review of the procedural reasonableness of a sentence. Circuits are now split on the question. What is required of a defendant to properly preserve a claim of procedural unreasonableness? II. Whether Mr. Cuddington’s sentence is substantively reasonable in light of his exceptional history and characteristics? i
Docket Entries
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-11-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 23, 2020)
Attorneys
Jeffrey Cuddington
United States of America
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent