| 23-6846 |
In Re Shirron Jozette Gayles-Zanders |
|
2024-02-28 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
appellate-procedure appellate-review civil-rights criminal-procedure due-process equal-protection habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance mandamus nevada-supreme-court post-conviction-relief |
Question not identified. |
| 23-623 |
Martin Akerman v. Nevada National Guard |
Nevada |
2023-12-11 |
Denied |
Relisted (2) |
constitutional-rights detention detention-challenge due-process federal-law habeas-corpus military-jurisdiction nevada-supreme-court |
1. Jurisdictional Question: Whether the Nevada Supreme Court made an error in naming the Nevada National Guard as the sole respondent in a habeas corp… |
| 21-5019 |
Noe Perez v. Renee Baker, Warden, et al. |
Ninth Circuit |
2021-07-07 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
appellate-review certificate-of-appealability constitutional-question fifth-circuit judicial-disagreement nevada-supreme-court ninth-circuit reasonable-jurists seventh-circuit |
Did the Ninth Circuit clearly err when it denied Mr. Perez's request for a COA even though three reasonable jurists on Nevada's highest court already … |
| 20-874 |
David Lee Phillips v. State Bar of Nevada |
Nevada |
2020-12-31 |
Denied |
|
african-american attorney-discipline constitutional-rights disciplinary-proceedings due-process nevada-supreme-court procedural-fairness professional-conduct suspension withdrawal |
1. Was Petitioner denied constitutional procedural due process of law by the Nevada Supreme Court in its "Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea Agre… |
| 18-6464 |
Frank Ralph LaPena v. George Grigas, et al. |
Ninth Circuit |
2018-10-26 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
contract-killing criminal-conviction criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus highly-deferential-review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel legal-insufficiency legal-sufficiency nevada-supreme-court physical-evidence rational-juror reasonable-doubt sufficiency-of-evidence witness-testimony wrongful-conviction |
Whether the Nevada Supreme Court's decision rejecting the legal insufficiency claim was unreasonable because, even under a highly deferential review, … |