No. 23-6085
Randall Gray Stoneman, Jr. v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 4th-amendment criminal-procedure district-court evidence evidence-seizure federal-sentencing-guidelines motion-to-suppress search-and-seizure sentencing sentencing-guidelines video-surveillance
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2024-01-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was the district court in error in denying the motion to suppress the evidence?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. WAS THE DISTRICT COURT IN ERROR IN DENYING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE APRIL 19, 2020 VIDEO? B. WAS THE SIX LEVEL ENHANCEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A1.2(c)(1), FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE? C. WAS THE 4 LEVEL ENHANCEMENT FOR USING BODY ARMOR JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE? D. WAS THE CROSS REFERENCE TO ATTEMPTE4D FIRST DEGREE MURDER, AS OPPOSED TO ATTEMPTED SECOND DEGREE MURDER, JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE? i
Docket Entries
2024-01-08
Petition DENIED.
2023-12-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
2023-12-01
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-11-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 21, 2023)
Attorneys
Randall Gray Stoneman, Jr.
James Braxton Craven III — Attorney at Law, Petitioner
James Braxton Craven III — Attorney at Law, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent