No. 24-5497

Michael Scott Hoover v. United States

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-09-09
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process evidentiary-hearing judicial-review reversible-error
Key Terms:
Environmental Arbitration SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2024-10-11
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a state court's failure to provide a substantive evidentiary hearing violates a criminal defendant's due process rights and constitutes reversible error

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : . : | C Mesh) oa$__t Le Seate d | Ts ~the clause in iB USC. $235 dL coduces or traasmitted sing materials —_—_ Bat have been mailed, Ship ad, or transported noe olleediing inbestode” or tote commenre _thy aay nea? tal ing by Compe” aa (nghasis THeldeds aa. indepenteA iets dichional hook, oc 19 14_oaly_o_himrbing classe for tne rats jase __idicvional element & $2asl phic States, _—_[i&_Such person _Koows clas teason to _ Kaa). _ not Surly visual de pickiun “stl _be transported [oc tra ncorsled using any mena’ of facility a [of inbervrate ox SiCeign Comanene or in oc _ ince eng nberGrake oc Loceign commece or on fasted “rad_(e muphasis_oudled), and if iS syst _— gg Veni btng close, ate my twig _c&auictunS ye iGo GS hoe lad no_atlempl 4o_prave —_-__ LE Kaew ot had reason cto_Kasw that he visual depiction would be trons parted oc feansmitled 2 A Durdag omy yey iol, propensity edldence ___ aS alloted by the disteied couct Under Fedem| 2 Rute of Evidente AMY for alleged conduct proscribed —tander chapter 0 with a 17 year-old aad did ANS atlowence violate Rule 4/4 which States, We Flot of “chit! aad child mafedtation, Ta ___ hig tule and Pule 4s O) child means qo = ot ee a Lae mesented (Contld eter Ue te thal ‘that _o Seateocing argument must he madethat ———_ [re dichaset cals Spled tn consider the nese tte audi _unwartantee! Sentence disparities to presve _ the iscue Le _oppeiale ceutew’ propel, aad! if so wldS —_ “he —octual argument by ey _counse/ inthe Serr-excing emocaaduin phat the guidelines ploe_ouecty—haeh —_ Par 269.1 ancl others Siarilanly Situated_syese given —_ —— fs bshoatiady Inte Sentai than he gant ine fang —— SuFPiutad fo prekerue he argument, or tn the afernative, aS a _plain-ertoc teurews appropriate uncer Ye Catcumstraces? Are spre Foun carcutd court of appeals egutied dtp peuie ry Sententes for Substontive PeaSmngble regs dead did heir Baile fo do so in this case date _an —uareasenale and uaconatational Sembace 0b —aphedel $$. Se er a a a es Ss ns | i

Docket Entries

2024-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2024-09-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
2024-09-16
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-08-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 9, 2024)
2024-08-27
Application (24A196) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until October 14, 2024.
2024-08-09
Application (24A196) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 15, 2024 to October 14, 2024, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Michael Hoover
Michael Scott Hoover — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent