No. 18-5593

Maurice Mitchell v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2018-08-14
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: as-applied-challenge commerce-clause constitutional-challenge felony-enhancement felony-offense firearm-possession preponderance-of-evidence preponderance-standard second-amendment sentencing-enhancement sentencing-enhancement-2k2.1-b-6-b ussg-2k2.1
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2018-09-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the District Court committed error by failing to sustain the defense objection to the four-level enhancement of the sentence under USSG section 2K2.1(b)(6)(b)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I Whether the District Court committed error by failing to sustain the defense objection to the four-level enhancement of the sentence under USSG section 2K2.1(b)(6)(b) based upon the finding that the Government proved the facts by a preponderance of the evidence that the Appellant possessed the firearm "in connection with another felony offense? It Whether, for the purposed of further review, 18 U.S.C section 922(g) is facially unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, and is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Mitchell's intrastate possession of a firearm and ammunition? i

Docket Entries

2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-08-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-08-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-08-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 13, 2018)

Attorneys

United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Maurice Mitchell
James HernandezLaw Office of James A. Hernandez, Petitioner
James HernandezLaw Office of James A. Hernandez, Petitioner