Tag Archives: relist

Will SCOTUS Grant Review to Acquitted Conduct Today? – Update for January 23, 2023

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

ACQUITTED CONDUCT STILL HANGING FIRE

Three weeks ago, I wrote that the Supreme Court would be deciding whether to finally take the question of whether a district court should be able to factor conduct for which a defendant was acquitted into a sentence, sort of “the jury didn’t think you did it, but I know better” approach to sentencing.

relist230123It turns out that SCOTUS now has five petitions for review before it raising the acquitted conduct issue. The principal case, McClinton v. United States, was “relisted” at the Justices’ Friday, January 6, 2023, conference for the following week’s Friday conference. On January 13, the Justices relisted the issue again for the January 20, 2023, conference. The Court will announce actions taken at the January 20th conference this morning at 9:30 Eastern time.

A “relist” occurs when the justices neither accept nor deny a petition for certiorari, but instead defer it for the next conference.

SCOTUSBlog explains that

it is almost impossible to know exactly what is happening when a particular case is relisted… One justice could be trying to pick up a fourth vote to grant review, one or more justices may want to look more closely at the case, a justice could be writing an opinion about the court’s decision to deny review, or the court could be writing an opinion to summarily reverse… the decision below.

Generally, the Supreme Court does not accept a case for review until it has been “relisted” one or more times.

Writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said last week, “More often than not, relisting is a precursor to a later denial of cert, perhaps with a dissent or separate statement being authored by one or more Justices giving their take on the Court’s decision not to grant review. But relisting is also sometimes a precursor to a later granting of cert. So, as I have said before, I am hopeful, though still more than a bit pessimistic, about the possibility of 2023 being the year for SCOTUS to take up acquitted conduct sentencing.”

SCOTUSBlog, Acquitted-conduct sentencing and “offended observer” standing (January 19, 2023)

McClinton v. United States, Case No. 21-1557 (petition for certiorari pending)

Sentencing Law and Policy, US Supreme Court relists latest cases seeking review of acquitted conduct sentencing (January 17, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Supremes Leave Behind Busy Fall Docket as They Take Summer Break – Update for July 6, 2021

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

The Supreme Court wrapped up a fairly lackluster October Term 2020 last Thursday, having delivered little of merit in the criminal law area other than Borden v. United States. But the nine justices left a teaser or two as they headed in various directions for a three-month vacation.

hobbsact200218On Thursday, the Court granted review to United States v. Taylor, a 4th Circuit decision holding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18 USC § 924(c) and the Armed Career Criminal Act. The 4th’s decision created a Circuit split – four other circuits hold that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence – leading the government to seek certiorari. The split – and the fact that the government usually gets its way when it asks for discretionary review – probably convinced the Supreme Court to hear the case, which will be argued late this year.

The Supreme Court left town without deciding whether to review Bryant v. United States, the 11th Circuit holding that prohibits using the compassionate release statute to challenge excessive sentences. Seven other circuits have held that the narrow grounds for 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions listed in Guidelines policy statement § 1B1.13 do not limit compassionate release motions brought by inmates, but only when such motions are brought by the Bureau of Prisons. (Remember the last time one of those was filed by the BOP?) Only the 11th Circuit – no surprise there – holds that § 1B1.13 still governs such motions.

longconf210706

The Bryant petition is on relist, and certiorari won’t be decided until the first conference of the new court year – known as the “long conference” – set for the last week of September 2020.

United States v. Taylor, Case No 20-1459, (certiorari granted July 1, 2021)

Bryant v. United States, Case No 20-1732 (petition for cert pending)
<><>

– Thomas L. Root

SCOTUS Hems and Haws, Then Passes on Change to Refine Beckles – Update for June 1, 2018

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues. 

LISAStatHeader2small
SUPREME COURT NIXES CHANCE TO ANSWER QUESTION LEFT HANGING BY BECKLES

A few weeks ago, we reported that the Supreme Court had relisted three related cases an unusual number of times. (A relist is when the Supreme Court schedules a certiorari petition for a decision at the weekly Friday justices’ conference, but then defers any decision until the next conference, essentially “relisting” it on the next week’s conference list).

missedopp180531Last week, the Court denied review without comment on those cases, Allen v. United States, Gates v. United States, and James v. United States. All of these cases asked whether under the Supreme Court’s opinions in United States v. BookerJohnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States – all of which depended heavily upon the distinction between advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes – the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. Now that question will go unanswered for now.

SCOTUSBlog noted last week, “It’s curious when cases that have been relisted as many as ten times are denied review without even a short statement respecting denial. But perhaps, just as the most effective dissent from denial of cert is never seen (because the court just decides to go ahead and grant review), maybe someone wrote a killer concurrence.”

Supreme Court, Order (May 21, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small