No. 23-6097
Montrez Duncan v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review constitutional-vindictiveness conviction criminal-sentencing double-jeopardy due-process judicial-discretion resentencing sentencing unconstitutional
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2024-01-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is a court constitutionally vindictive in violation of due process when, after it vacates the conviction and sentence on a count that was deemed unconstitutional, it resentences a defendant to an equally long total sentence by increasing the sentences on the counts that remain?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Is a court constitutionally vindictive in violation of due process when, after it vacates the conviction and sentence on a count that was deemed unconstitutional, it resentences a defendant to an equally long total sentence by increasing the sentences on the counts that remain? 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.
2023-11-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 22, 2023)
Attorneys
Montrez Duncan
Melissa Martin Salinas — Federal Appellate Litigation Clinic, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent