Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Kassim M. Nagi v. Louisiana

Paid petition · Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, No. 2017 KA 1257 · judgment April 9, 2018

GVR'd · April 27, 2020
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

  1. A sentence, even within range, is excessive when it imposes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the evidence, or constitutes nothing more than the needless infliction of pain and suffering. So, do the 8th Amendment and the proportionality test required by Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), bar as punitive a 90-year consecutive sentence – 30-year sentences each for racketeering and money laundering, and 15 years each for distribution of, and possession of, synthetic marijuana – as excessive and cruel and unusual punishment for a 33-yearold, first-time offender such that the term-of-year sentences, for constitutional purposes, constitute the same as a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole? See, e.g., Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003).

  2. In order to prove a defendant guilty of racketeering, the state must prove the existence of an “enterprise” as a separate element from “pattern of racketeering activity.” Therefore, does one commit racketeering when the state implicitly alleges by its indictment and fails to present evidence that the defendant knowingly participated in a prohibited pattern of racketeering activity, without proving the enterprise, separate elements required by United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 2528- 29, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981)?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Mark David Plaisance
Plaisance Law LLC

For respondent
Elizabeth Baker Murrill
Office of the Attorney General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences

Proceedings

  1. May 29 2020
    MANDATE ISSUED.
  2. May 29 2020
    JUDGMENT ISSUED.
  3. Apr 27 2020
    Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___ (2020). Justice Alito, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand: In this and in all other cases in which the Court grants, vacates, and remands in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, I concur in the judgment on the understanding that the Court is not deciding or expressing a view on whether the question was properly raised below but is instead leaving that question to be decided on remand. Justice Thomas would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.
  4. Apr 20 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2020.
  5. Nov 26 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.
  6. Nov 21 2019
    Reply of petitioner Kassim Nagi filed.
  7. Nov 12 2019
    Brief of Louisiana in opposition not accepted for filing. (November 15, 2019)
  8. Nov 12 2019
    Brief of respondent Louisiana in opposition filed. (11/20/2019)
  9. Aug 23 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 12, 2019.
  10. Aug 15 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 13, 2019 to November 12, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  11. Aug 14 2019
    Response Requested. (Due September 13, 2019)
  12. Jul 31 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
  13. Jul 29 2019
    Waiver of right of respondent Louisiana to respond filed.
  14. Jun 24 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 29, 2019)