No. 23-6900
Bryan Reshad Hill v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure federal-rules fifth-circuit jury-verdict plain-error presentence-report rosales-mireles sentencing sentencing-guidelines
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy
DueProcess Privacy
Latest Conference:
2024-03-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does a sentence twice that authorized by the jury's verdict constitute plain error?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Does a sentence twice that authorized by the jury’s verdict constitute plain error? This Court’s decision in Rosales-Mireles suggests so, but recent Fifth Circuit caselaw holds otherwise. In a criminal case, must the Presentence Report required by Federal Rule of Procedure 32 contain an explanation of the basis of the defendant’s sentencing guidelines calculation? Does the answer to that question change if the basis for the calculation is consistent with the trial record? i
Docket Entries
2024-04-01
Petition DENIED.
2024-03-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/28/2024.
2024-03-08
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-01-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 4, 2024)
Attorneys
Bryan Reshad Hill
Leigh Warren Davis — Leigh Warren Davis, Petitioner
Leigh Warren Davis — Leigh Warren Davis, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent