|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-7739||5th Cir.||Dec 10, 2019||Feb 26, 2020||9-0||Breyer||OT 2019|
Holding: Holguin-Hernandez's district-court argument for a specific sentence (nothing or less than 12 months) preserved his claim on appeal that the sentence imposed was unreasonably long.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on February 26, 2020. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 22 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 6, 2019)|
|Feb 11 2019||Waiver of right of respondent United States of Amercia to respond filed.|
|Feb 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.|
|Feb 25 2019||Response Requested. (Due March 27, 2019)|
|Mar 20 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 27, 2019 to April 26, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Mar 21 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 26, 2019.|
|Apr 26 2019||Brief of respondent United States of Amercia in opposition filed.|
|Apr 30 2019||Reply of petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez filed.|
|May 08 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.|
|May 28 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.|
|Jun 03 2019||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Jun 18 2019||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez.|
|Jun 28 2019||K. Winn Allen, Esquire, of Washington, D. C., is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.|
|Jun 30 2019||Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Jul 03 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.|
|Jul 17 2019||Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix, petitioner's brief on the merits, and the brief of the United States on the merits is extended to and including July 29, 2019. The time to file the brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below is extended to and including September 9, 2019.|
|Jul 29 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jul 29 2019||Brief of petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez filed. (Reprinted brief submitted).|
|Jul 29 2019||Brief of petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez filed. (September 27, 2019 - Reprinted).|
|Jul 29 2019||Brief of respondent United States supporting vacatur filed.|
|Aug 05 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Association of Federal Defenders filed.|
|Aug 20 2019||Motion of the Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below for a further extension of time to file the brief on the merits filed.|
|Aug 30 2019||Motion to further extend the time to file the Court-appointed amicus curiae's brief on the merits in support of the judgment below granted and the time to file is extended to and including September 30, 2019.|
|Sep 13 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, December 10, 2019.|
|Sep 30 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed.|
|Oct 04 2019||Motion for divided argument filed by respondent United States.|
|Oct 07 2019||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED, and Philip J. Lynch, Esq., of San Antonio, Texas, is appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.|
|Oct 21 2019||Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED, and the time is divided as follows: 15 minutes for petitioner, 15 minutes for the Solicitor General in support of vacatur, and 30 minutes for Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below.|
|Oct 23 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Oct 25 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 30 2019||Reply of petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 30 2019||Reply of respondent United States supporting vacatur filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 31 2019||Sealed documents received from the U.S.D.C. Western District of Texas (electronic).|
|Dec 10 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Kendall Turner, Washington, D. C. For respondent in support of vacatur: Morgan L. Ratner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below: K. Winn Allen, Washington, D. C.|
|Feb 26 2020||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined.|
|Mar 30 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
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.