No. 22-6109

Dustin Wayne Randall v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-11-18
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: circuit-split criminal-law criminal-procedure double-jeopardy due-process non-indigent-defendant special-assessment statutory-construction statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity
Latest Conference: 2023-03-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3014 requires a non-indigent defendant to pay a single additional special assessment of $5,000 or $5,000 for every qualifying conviction

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Question Presented for Review Congress mandates any person convicted of “an offense against the United States” pay a nominal special assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3013. The total amount of this special assessment ranges between $5 to $400, depending on the type of infraction or class of offense and whether the defendant is an individual or an organization. 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(1)-(2). In Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 301 (1996), this Court stated § 3013 requires a “special assessment for every conviction.” In 2015, Congress mandated “an additional” special assessment in “an amount of $5,000” under 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a), triggered only if a non-indigent defendant is “convicted of an offense” among five offense categories. See 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)(1)-(5). Because the text, structure, scheme, purpose, and history of § 3014 differ from § 3018, the federal circuit courts do not agree on how to interpret § 3014. Federal courts remain divided over whether § 3014(a)’s assessment in “an amount of $5,000,” once triggered by a conviction under a qualifying offense category, is to be imposed only once per defendant or repeatedly for each qualifying conviction. The question presented is whether 18 U.S.C. § 3014, once triggered by a qualifying conviction, requires a non-indigent defendant to pay a single additional special assessment in “an amount of $5,000” or pay $5,000 for every qualifying conviction. i

Docket Entries

2023-03-27
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/24/2023.
2023-02-17
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2023-01-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 17, 2023.
2023-01-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 18, 2023 to February 17, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-12-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 18, 2023.
2022-12-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 19, 2022 to January 18, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-11-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 19, 2022)

Attorneys

Dustin Randall
Amy B. ClearyFederal Public Defender, District of Nevada, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent