No. 23-5130
Caleb Bryant Hickcox v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: bruen circuit-split criminal-procedure criminal-sentencing district-court-procedure reasonableness reasonableness-review second-amendment sentencing sentencing-requirements statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
SecondAmendment DueProcess Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
SecondAmendment DueProcess Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Must district courts comply with 18-usc-3553(c)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1) Must district courts comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) to state, in open court, the reasons for the sentence imposed? 2) Should a circuit split regarding the application of § 3553(c) to reasonableness challenges of defendants’ sentences be resolved? 3) Is U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional in light of Bruen and its accompanying decisions? 8
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-07-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2023-07-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 18, 2023)
Attorneys
Caleb Hickcox
Chad Phillip Van Cleave — Van Cleave Law Firm, PC, Petitioner
Chad Phillip Van Cleave — Van Cleave Law Firm, PC, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent