No. 23-6499

Pete Manning v. United States

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2024-01-17
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: circuit-split controlled-substance criminal-procedure drug-schedules federal-law federal-sentencing sentencing-guidelines state-law time-of-consequences time-of-conviction
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-02-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the term 'controlled substance' is defined by the drug schedules that existed at the time of the prior predicate conviction, or the drug schedules that exist at the time of the federal offense or federal sentencing

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED In federal sentencing, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines typically call for a higher advisory Guidelines range if the defendant has been convicted of a prior “controlled substance offense.” But in defining the term “controlled substance,” two circuit splits have developed. 1. Is the term “controlled substance” defined by the drug schedules that existed at the time of the prior predicate conviction, or the drug schedules that exist at the time of the federal offense or federal sentencing? 2. Does the term “controlled substance” refer only to those substances controlled under federal law, or does it also include separate substances controlled only under state-law drug schedules? i

Docket Entries

2024-02-20
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
2024-01-26
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 16, 2024)

Attorneys

Pete Manning
Jason UllmanFederal Public Defender Office, Petitioner
Jason UllmanFederal Public Defender Office, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent