No. 23-5626
Arun Dhavamani v. United States
Tags: appellate-review criminal-procedure criminal-prosecution due-process evidentiary-hearing factual-finding federal-jurisdiction manufactured-jurisdiction sentencing
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy
DueProcess Privacy
Latest Conference:
2023-10-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a defendant's right to due process is violated when a Court of Appeals remands a case for additional factfinding after the district court has already made a factual finding, and used it as a basis for imposing a downward variance sentence, that the Government manufactured jurisdiction in the case
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a defendant’s right to due process is violated when a Court of Appeals remands a case for additional factfinding after the district court has already made a factual finding, and used it as a basis for imposing a downward variance sentence, that the Government manufactured jurisdiction in the case. -1 II.
Docket Entries
2023-10-16
Petition DENIED.
2023-09-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/13/2023.
2023-09-22
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-09-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 20, 2023)
Attorneys
Arun Dhavamani
Jonathan David Byrne — Federal Pub Defender S. Dist., Petitioner
Jonathan David Byrne — Federal Pub Defender S. Dist., Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent