No. 18-5731
Heather Jo Cox v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-review criminal-justice-reform-act criminal-procedure due-process equitable-tolling johnson-ruling johnson-v-united-states second-successive-filing successive-filing successive-petitions vagueness vagueness-doctrine vagueness-standard
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2018-09-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the lower court err in denying relief where this court has recognized robbery/burglary as vague under Johnson?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ITS DECISON TO DENY RELIEF WHERE THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT ROBBERY/BURGLARY FALL INTO THE CATEGORY, THAT FALLS UNDER THE JOHNSON RULING, “AS IT RELATES . mo ‘TO VAGUENESS? : an : ; . : . 2. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ITS DECISION TO DENY THE PETITIONER TO PROCEED WITH A SECOND/SUCCESSIVE FILING AS UNTIMLEY, WHERE : JOHNSON V-UNITED STATES DID APPLY, AS WAS WITHIN EQUITABLE TOLLING? . . . RECEIVED | oe MAY 18 2018 . . L SUPREME CoG GER . . _ | RECEIVED : . MAY 18 2018 . . SUPREME COU ER | 0 : a
Docket Entries
2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-08-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-05-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 24, 2018)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent