No. 18-5504

William Lem Posey, II v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-08-08
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: career-offender categorical-approach circuit-split criminal-procedure criminal-sentencing descamps-approach divisibility element-analysis element-based-approach grammar-based-approach mandatory-guidelines non-generic-offense sentencing sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2019-01-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a non-generic offense is divisible under Descamps v. United States

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED To decide whether a non-generic offense is divisible under Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), does a sentencing court need to take a grammar-based approach or an elementbased approach? That is, does the court need to ask: qd) Whether a prosecutor could, as a grammatical matter, possibly write the indictment such that it describes a generic offense? or (2) Whether jury instructions would possibly require the jury to unanimously find elements that would amount to a generic offense? i

Docket Entries

2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-11-08
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2018-09-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 8, 2018.
2018-09-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 9, 2018 to November 8, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-08-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 9, 2018.
2018-08-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 7, 2018 to October 9, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-08-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 7, 2018)

Attorneys

United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
William L. Posey, II
Michael Clark HolleyOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Michael Clark HolleyOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner