No. 18-7586

Zachary T. Frey v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2019-01-25
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: armed-career-criminal-act burden-of-proof collateral-review criminal-procedure judicial-interpretation post-sentencing-case-law post-sentencing-law residual-clause retroactivity sentencing-enhancement
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-03-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a defendant can prove his ACCA-enhanced sentence was based on the unconstitutional residual clause by relying on post-sentencing case law

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

question presented here is, whether a defendant, faced with a silent record below, can prove his ACCA-enhanced sentence was indeed based upon the residual clause through a process of elimination. And in doing so, can he rely on postsentencing case law, including this Court’s decisions clarifying the other ACCA clauses?! 1 This same issue, and Beeman itself, are currently the subject of a petition for writ of certiorari pending before this Court. Beeman v. United States, No. 18-6385 (pending). i PARTIES INVOLVED The parties identified in the caption of this case are the only parties before the Court. ii

Docket Entries

2019-03-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2019-02-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-01-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 25, 2019)

Attorneys

United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Zachary T. Frey
Megan Jean SaillantOffice of the Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of Florida, Petitioner
Megan Jean SaillantOffice of the Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of Florida, Petitioner