No. 18-6533
Anthony Lewallyn v. United States
IFP
Tags: criminal-procedure criminal-registration-requirements due-process federal-criminal-law interstate-travel nichols-precedent nichols-v-united-states registration sex-offender sex-offender-registration sorna statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-03-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can a sex offender be prosecuted for failing to register or update his registration in the district where he began his interstate travel but in which he no longer resides, is an employee, or is a student?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED After this Court’s opinion in Nichols v. United States, can a sex offender be prosecuted for failing to register or update his registration in the district where he began his interstate travel but in which he no longer resides, is an employee, or is a student?
Docket Entries
2019-03-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-08
Reply of petitioner Anthony Michael Lewallyn filed. (Distributed)
2019-02-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2019-02-01
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2018-12-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 1, 2019
2018-12-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 2, 2019 to February 1, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-11-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 2, 2019.
2018-11-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 3, 2018 to January 2, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-10-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 3, 2018)
Attorneys
Anthony Michael Lewallyn
Victoria Marie Calvert — Federal Defender Program, Inc., Petitioner
Victoria Marie Calvert — Federal Defender Program, Inc., Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent