No. 21-6520
Mark J. Zimny v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeal appellate-court due-process motion-for-summary-disposition reasonable-jurists substantial-question summary-disposition supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2022-01-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did an appellate court contravene Supreme Court precedent by granting the government's motion for summary disposition?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Did an appellate court contravene Supreme Court precedent by granting the government’s motion for summary disposition when prior decisions of this Court, as well as lower Court decisions on nearly identical questions of law, establish that a defendant’s request is (at least) debatable among reasonable jurists and in fact presented a ‘substantial question’ on instant appeal? See: Garcia v. Davis, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192801, *35 (S.D. Texas, Nov. 13, 2018), Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. __ (2017), and Jordan v. Fisher, 135 S. Ct. 2647, (2015). (i)
Docket Entries
2022-01-10
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-12-14
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-12-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 5, 2022)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent