|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-9493||5th Cir.||Feb 21, 2018||Jun 18, 2018||7-2||Sotomayor||OT 2017|
Holding: A miscalculation of a Federal Guidelines sentencing range that has been determined to be plain and to affect a defendant’s substantial rights calls for a court of appeals to exercise its discretion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) to vacate the defendant’s sentence in the ordinary case.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 18, 2018. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 05 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 10, 2017)|
|Jul 07 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 9, 2017.|
|Aug 09 2017||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Aug 22 2017||Reply of petitioner Florencio Rosales-Mireles filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 24 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.|
|Sep 28 2017||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Nov 09 2017||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 29, 2017.|
|Nov 09 2017||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 10, 2018.|
|Nov 29 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of cost filed.)|
|Nov 29 2017||Brief of petitioner Rosales-Mireles, Florencio filed.|
|Dec 05 2017||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Dec 20 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, February 21, 2018|
|Jan 05 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 10 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Jan 10 2018||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 09 2018||Reply of petitioner Rosales-Mireles, Florencio filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 21 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Kristin L. Davidson, Assistant Federal Public Defender for Western Dist. of Tex., San Antonio, Tex. For respondent: Jonathan Ellis, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 18 2018||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined.|
|Jul 20 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.