No. 21-5995

Christopher Emory Cramer v. United States

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-10-18
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: appellate-procedure conference-in-chambers due-process eighth-amendment federal-rule federal-rule-of-appellate-procedure-10(c) federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure-43 fifth-amendment judicial-proceeding record-completion record-on-appeal sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment Punishment Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-03-18
Related Cases: 21-5991 (Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

whether-an-unrecorded-conference-is-a-hearing-or-trial-under-federal-rule-of-appellate-procedure-10(c)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether an unrecorded conference in chambers is a “hearing or trial,” or “proceeding,” under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c) such that a statement of the conference can be prepared and complete the record on appeal.! IJ. Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from sentencing a defendant to death on a finding of future dangerousness based in substantial part on graphic testimony and evidence about attacks on prison officials and prison inmates committed by other inmates at other times and having no connection to the defendant. III. Whether a District Court’s failure to answer a deliberating jury’s question in open court, in a defendant’s presence, violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and Fed. R. Crim. P. 43. 1 The petition for writ of certiorari in Savage v. United States, No. 20-1389, raises another question about Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10: “Whether the Third Circuit properly held—in conflict with decades of federal practice endorsing flexible procedures to assemble a complete record on appeal—that an appellant seeking a complete appellate record must overcome procedural impediments lacking any basis in Rule 10’s text.” i

Docket Entries

2022-03-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
2022-03-02
Reply of petitioner Christopher Emory Cramer filed. (Distributed)
2021-12-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 14, 2022.
2021-12-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 14, 2022 to February 14, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-12-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 14, 2022.
2021-12-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 17, 2021 to January 14, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 17, 2021.
2021-11-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 17, 2021 to December 17, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-10-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 17, 2021)

Attorneys

Christopher Emory Cramer
Sean BolserFederal Defenders of NY, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent