No. 22-7740
Chelsea Shannon McIntyre v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: career-offender criminal-procedure due-process judicial-discretion policy predicate-convictions sentencing-guidelines
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did Ms. McIntyre receive due process of law where the district applied Career Offender Guidelines, lacking a sound basis in policy, and leading to a career offender designation that was based on insufficiently substantial predicate convictions?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Did Ms. McIntyre receive due process of law where the district applied Career Offender Guidelines, lacking a sound basis in policy, and leading to a career offender designation that was based on insufficiently substantial predicate convictions?
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-06-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-06-14
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-06-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 10, 2023)
Attorneys
Chelsea McIntyre
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent