United States v. Wilson

Second Circuit

United States v. Wilson

571 F. App'x 19

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 25, 2014

DocketNo. 13-3566-cr

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 571 F. App'x 19 (United States v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Wilson, 571 F. App'x 19 (2d Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

We REMAND for the District Court to reconsider its decision that Wilson is not intellectually disabled, United States v. Wilson, 922 F.Supp.2d 334 (E.D.N.Y.2013), in light of Hall v. Florida, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014). The District Court should address whether it needs to consider evidence of Wilson’s [20]*20adaptive deficits given Wilson’s IQ scores. The District Court may consider any other issue it deems appropriate and conduct additional factfinding if warranted.

We express no opinion regarding how, if at all, Hall affects the District Court’s original analysis. This remand is pursuant to the procedure outlined in United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir.1994).

Wilson’s motion to stay the time to file a briefing schedule (Docket No. 89) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

We REMAND for the District Court to reconsider its decision that Wilson is not intellectually disabled, United States v. Wilson, 922 F.Supp.2d 334 (E.D.N.Y.2013), in light of Hall v. Florida, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014). The District Court should address whether it needs to consider evidence of Wilson’s [20]*20adaptive deficits given Wilson’s IQ scores. The District Court may consider any other issue it deems appropriate and conduct additional factfinding if warranted.

We express no opinion regarding how, if at all, Hall affects the District Court’s original analysis. This remand is pursuant to the procedure outlined in United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir.1994).

Wilson’s motion to stay the time to file a briefing schedule (Docket No. 89) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 F. App'x 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-wilson-ca2-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack