No. 21-7170

Deborah Bowers and Steve S. Jabar, aka Steve Shariff, aka Satar Jabar, aka Kamal Jabar, aka Kamal Jamel v. United States

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2022-02-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-1001 appeal appellate-review criminal-procedure false-statements fraud fraud-theory indictment materiality materiality-standard prosecutorial-discretion statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2022-03-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)

May a court of appeals reinstate a verdict on a theory of fraud that was not pled in the indictment, not sought to be proven or argued at the trial, not advanced by the government on its appeal, and which had been disavowed by the government?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented 1. May a court of appeals reinstate a verdict on a theory of fraud that was not pled in the indictment, not sought to be proven or argued at the trial, not advanced by the government on its appeal, and which had been disavowed by the government? 2. Where the investigation was concluded at the time of the questioning, and the only evidence on materiality is the agent’s testimony that the false answers to his questions would have no effect on the investigation, were the answers material under 18 U.S.C. §1001? i

Docket Entries

2022-03-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
2022-02-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-02-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 24, 2022)

Attorneys

Deborah Bowers, et al.
Mark John MahoneyHarrington & Mahoney, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent