|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-8913||5th Cir.||Jan 12, 2016||Apr 20, 2016||8-0||Kennedy||OT 2015|
Holding: Courts reviewing use of an incorrect Federal Sentencing Guidelines range cannot apply a categorical "additional evidence" rule requiring a showing that use of the incorrect range affected a defendant's sentence in cases in which a district court applied an incorrect range but sentenced the defendant within the correct range.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on April 20, 2016. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 16 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 17, 2015)|
|Apr 8 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 18, 2015.|
|Apr 24 2015||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including June 18, 2015.|
|Jun 10 2015||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Jun 11 2015||Reply of petitioner Saul Molina-Martinez filed.|
|Jun 25 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.|
|Oct 1 2015||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Nov 16 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Nov 16 2015||Brief of petitioner Saul Molina-Martinez filed.|
|Nov 24 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, January 12, 2016|
|Dec 4 2015||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Dec 15 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Dec 16 2015||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 4 2016||Reply of petitioner Saul Molina-Martinez filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 12 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Timothy Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, Tex. For respondent: Scott A.C. Meisler, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 19 2016||Record from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of Texas is electronic and also received in hard copy. (1 Envelope)|
|Apr 20 2016||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined.|
|May 23 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
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.