No. 23-6629
Gilbert Dean Bicknell v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-3553a brady-materiality brady-v-maryland district-court-finding due-process federal-sentencing guidelines-determination judicial-discretion materiality prosecutorial-disclosure sentencing-information united-states-v-booker
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2024-03-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the materiality analysis from Brady v. Maryland sufficiently satisfies due process when applied to federal sentencing decisions post-Booker
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
No question identified. :
Docket Entries
2024-03-04
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2024.
2024-02-09
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-01-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 1, 2024)
2023-11-03
Application (23A405) granted by Justice Barrett extending the time to file until January 27, 2024.
2023-10-25
Application (23A405) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 28, 2023 to January 27, 2024, submitted to Justice Barrett.
Attorneys
Gilbert Dean Bicknell
Adam Clay Stevenson — University of Wisconsin Law School, Petitioner
Adam Clay Stevenson — University of Wisconsin Law School, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent