|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-5639||10th Cir.||Apr 23, 2018||Jun 18, 2018||5-3||Breyer||OT 2017|
Holding: Because the record in this case demonstrates that the judge had a reasoned basis for his decision, the judge’s explanation for reducing, under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(2), Adaucto Chavez-Meza’s sentence to the middle rather than the bottom of the amended Federal Guidelines range was adequate.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 18, 2018. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 01 2017||Application (17A45) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 13, 2017 to August 14, 2017, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Jul 10 2017||Application (17A45) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until August 14, 2017.|
|Aug 14 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 18, 2017)|
|Sep 15 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 18, 2017.|
|Sep 26 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 17, 2017.|
|Nov 17 2017||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Dec 01 2017||Reply of petitioner Adaucto Chavez-Meza filed.|
|Dec 07 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2018.|
|Jan 08 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/12/2018.|
|Jan 12 2018||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|Jan 16 2018||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Adaucto Chavez-Meza.|
|Feb 14 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/2/2018.|
|Feb 23 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 23, 2018.|
|Feb 26 2018||Brief of petitioner Adaucto Chavez-Meza filed (to be corrected and reprinted).|
|Feb 26 2018||Motion for leave to file Volume II of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioner Adaucto Chavez-Meza.|
|Feb 26 2018||Joint appendix (Volume 1) filed.|
|Feb 26 2018||Brief of petitioner Adaucto Chavez-Meza filed (Corrected brief received 3/26/18). (Distributed)|
|Feb 27 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Adaucto Chavez-Meza|
|Mar 05 2018||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED, and Todd A. Coberly, Esquire, of Santa Fe, New Mexico, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|Mar 05 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Center on the Administration of Criminal Law filed.|
|Mar 05 2018||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Association of Federal Defenders filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 07 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 07 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/23/2018.|
|Mar 26 2018||Motion for leave to file Volume II of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|Mar 28 2018||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 30 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A.10th Circuit.|
|Apr 03 2018||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit. (1 Envelope)|
|Apr 13 2018||Reply of petitioner Adaucto Chavez-Meza filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 23 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Todd A. Coberly, Santa Fe, N. M. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent: Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 18 2018||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Ginsburg, and Alito, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|Jul 20 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Aug 29 2018||The record from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit has been returned.|
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.