No. 18-7331
Ishmael Douglas v. United States
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: categorical-analysis circuit-split constitutional-law constitutional-vagueness criminal-law due-process legal-precedent sentencing statutory-interpretation vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-06-27
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the residual clause of 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(8)(B) is unconstitutionally vague
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the residual clause of 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(8)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.
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.
2019-03-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-03-11
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-01-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 11, 2019.
2019-01-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 8, 2019 to March 11, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-01-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 8, 2019)
Attorneys
Ishmael Douglas
J. Hilary Billings — Federal Defender of Maine, Petitioner
J. Hilary Billings — Federal Defender of Maine, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent