No. 23-5290
Littleton William Clark v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-law district-court double-jeopardy due-process felony-offense firearms guideline-application sentencing-enhancement sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the District Court erred in interpreting Note 14(@) of §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) when it applied a four-level enhancement pursuant to §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for 'another felony offense' where the other felony offense is necessarily either the same possessory offense for which Clark was convicted, or not a felony
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the District Court erred in interpreting Note 14(@) of §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) when it applied a four-level enhancement pursuant to §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for “another felony offense” where the other felony offense is necessarily either the same possessory offense for which Clark was convicted, or not a felony. i
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-08
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-08-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 5, 2023)
Attorneys
Littleton Clark
James Nelsen — Stowers & Nelsen PLC, Petitioner
James Nelsen — Stowers & Nelsen PLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent