No. 18-7543
Rodney Landingham v. United States
Tags: criminal-law due-process residual-clause retroactivity sentencing statutory-interpretation violent-crime void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-04-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), retroactively void as unconstitutional the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Questions Presented For Review 1. Did Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), retroactively void as unconstitutional the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)? 2. Can federal armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) be a crime of violence under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) when the offense fails to require any intentional use, attempted use, or threat of violent physical force? ii
Docket Entries
2019-04-29
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
2019-04-09
Reply of petitioner Rodney Landingham filed. (Distributed)
2019-03-27
Memorandum of respondent United States of America filed.
2019-02-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 27, 2019.
2019-02-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 25, 2019 to March 27, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-01-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 25, 2019)
Attorneys
Rodney Landingham
Wendi L. Overmyer — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Wendi L. Overmyer — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent