No. 18-6569
Mark Lee Murray v. United States
Tags: 18-usc-924c 18-usc-924c3b categorical-approach circuit-split crime-of-violence criminal-law due-process johnson-retroactivity johnson-v-united-states mandatory-consecutive-sentence residual-clause retroactivity sentencing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-03-01
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), retroactively invalidates the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Questions Presented For Review 1. Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), retroactively invalidates the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). 2. Whether general intent “intimidation,” as used in the 1993 carjacking statute, is not a crime of violence under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) because that version of the statute does not require any intentional use, attempted use, or threat of violent physical force. ii
Docket Entries
2019-03-04
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.
2019-02-11
Reply of petitioner Mark L. Murray filed.
2019-01-28
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2018-12-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 28, 2019.
2018-12-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 28, 2018 to January 28, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-11-28
Response Requested. (Due December 28, 2018)
2018-11-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.
2018-11-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-11-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 5, 2018)
Attorneys
Mark L. Murray
Wendi L. Overmyer — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent