No. 22-5941

Albert L. Watson v. Stu Sherman, Warden, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-10-28
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: constitutional-provisions criminal-procedure due-process en-banc-hearing ninth-circuit penal-code procedural-rules reasoned-opinion sixth-amendment state-law state-penal-code
Key Terms:
Immigration
Latest Conference: 2023-01-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Was the district court's use of state penal code justifying violation of sixth amendment correct

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. WAS THE DISTRICT COURT'S USE OF STATE PENAL CODE JUSTIFYING VIOLATION OF SIX AMENDMENT A CORRECT APPLICATION OF STATE LAW ? . il. WAS THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S FAILURE TO ISSUE A REASONED . OPINION DIRECTLY RELATING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS UNDER PURCELL v. GONZALEZ, 54@.U.S. 1, Ill. 7 DID THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S EN BANC HEARING IMPROPERLY USE AND APPLY RULE 27-10 and General Order 6.11 IN ; ITS RULING, UNDER HENRY v. RYAN 766 F. 3d 1059.

Docket Entries

2023-01-09
Petition DENIED.
2022-12-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
2022-10-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 28, 2022)

Attorneys

Albert L. Watson
Albert L. Watson — Petitioner
Albert L. Watson — Petitioner