No. 22-6812
Ernest Luther Taylor v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeal court-appointed-counsel criminal-procedure indigent-defendant mental-health mental-illness restitution social-security social-security-disability
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity
SocialSecurity
Latest Conference:
2023-03-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the District Court err in ordering restitution interest for a defendant with mental illness and lack of income?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the District Court err when it ordered defendant Taylor to pay interest on a $7500.00 restitution obligation, where the evidence showed that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, had been on social security disability, qualified for court appointed counsel, and lacked income? 2. Did the Court of Appeals err when it granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss his appeal? ii
Docket Entries
2023-03-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/17/2023.
2023-02-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2023-02-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 20, 2023)
Attorneys
Ernest Taylor
James F. Halley — James F. Halley, P.C., Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent