No. 20-7250
Eunice Husband v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review criminal-procedure due-process federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-bias plain-error supervised-release united-states-constitution
Latest Conference:
2021-03-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
The fortcommitted Federal hule of Criminal Procedure 52 (b) Plain Error
I. Bias and Abandonment of judicial role by Distict Judge
Appellate Court failedto address district courts inCourt-identification
Appellate Court incorrectyasserts that defendant Was appointed counsel for case no. 19-cr-30016
IAppellate Court erred in affirming district Court's calculation of defendant's new term of supervised release
I.Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court and appellate court erred in their handling of the defendant's claims of plain error, judicial bias, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper calculation of supervised release term
Docket Entries
2021-03-29
Petition DENIED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2021-03-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.
2021-03-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-11-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 29, 2021)
Attorneys
Eunice Husband
Eunice Husband — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent