No. 18-7166
Tags: 18-usc-924 constitutional-challenge criminal-law due-process johnson-v-united-states sentencing-enhancement sessions-v-dimaya statutory-interpretation supreme-court-precedent vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-06-27
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the definition of 'crime of violence' in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8)(B) is unconstitutionally vague
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(¢)(8)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 8. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018). i
Docket Entries
2019-07-30
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2019-06-28
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. ___ (2019).
2019-06-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/27/2019.
2019-03-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2019.
2019-02-21
Memorandum of respondent United States of America filed.
2019-01-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 21, 2019.
2019-01-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 22, 2019 to February 21, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-12-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 22, 2019)
Attorneys
Gerard Mann
Andrew Lee Adler — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
Andrew Lee Adler — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent