No. 18-5685
Clifton Patterson v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: armed-career-criminal-act constitutional-challenge constitutional-law criminal-law due-process johnson-v-united-states sessions-v-dimaya statutory-interpretation supreme-court-precedent vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2018-09-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague following the Supreme Court’s holdings in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018)? 2. Whether federal bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act following the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)? i
Docket Entries
2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-08-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-08-27
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-08-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 20, 2018)
Attorneys
Clifton Patterson
Neil Fulton — Federal Public Defenders Office, Petitioner
Neil Fulton — Federal Public Defenders Office, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent