No. 18-7680
Hector Cirino v. United States
Tags: 18-usc-924c3b armed-bank-robbery categorical-approach circuit-split crime-of-violence criminal-law due-process elements-clause johnson-retroactivity johnson-v-united-states residual-clause retroactivity sentencing statutory-interpretation unconstitutional
Key Terms:
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-05-09
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
2019-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
2019-04-16
Reply of petitioner Hector Cirino filed.(Distributed)
2019-04-03
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-02-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 3, 2019.
2019-02-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 4, 2019 to April 3, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-01-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 4, 2019)
Attorneys
Hector Cirino
Wendi L. Overmyer — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent