No. 24-6242

Kent Booher v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-01-08
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: anders-brief appellate-review criminal-procedure ex-post-facto plain-error substantial-rights
Latest Conference: 2025-02-21
Question Presented (from Petition)

I. Did the Court of Appeals err when it failed to address the issues raised by the appellant after his appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)?

II. Did the Court of Appeals err in its plain error review when it held that appellant had not suffered an effect on his substantial rights that may have affected the outcome of the trial when he was indicted and tried using an ex post facto change in the law?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Court of Appeals err in its plain error review when it held that appellant had not suffered an effect on his substantial rights that may have affected the outcome of the trial when he was indicted and tried using an ex post facto change in the law?

Docket Entries

2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-01-17
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-01-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-12-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 7, 2025)

Attorneys

Kent Booher
Kent Booher — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent