No. 21-7065
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-sentencing procedural-reasonableness ransom-demand sentencing-guidelines substantive-reasonableness upward-adjustment vulnerable-victim
Key Terms:
Privacy
Privacy
Latest Conference:
2022-03-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the district court err in assigning a two-level upward adjustment and a six-level upward adjustment?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY ASSIGNING A TWO-LEVEL UPWARD ADJUSTMENT PURSUANTTO U.S.S.G. §3A1.1(b)(1) BASED ON ITS ERRONEOUS FINDING THAT THE CASE INVOLVED A “VULNERABLE VICTIM” ? DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY ASSIGNING A SIX-LEVEL UPWARD ADJUSTMENT PURSUANT TO U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(1) FOR “RANSOM DEMAND”? WAS THE DISTRICT COURT’S SENTENCE PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE ? ili
Docket Entries
2022-03-07
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/4/2022.
2022-02-10
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2022-01-31
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 9, 2022)
Attorneys
Lori Majors
Amy Ruth Blalock — Blalock Law Firm, Petitioner
Amy Ruth Blalock — Blalock Law Firm, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent