No. 18-7915

Arthur Sean Warner v. United States

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-02-12
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: alternative-locational-elements categorical-approach categorical-match categorical-matching criminal-statute-interpretation descamps descamps-v-united-states federal-statute mathis mathis-descamps-standard mathis-v-united-states school-property state-criminal-statute state-statute
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2019-03-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals findings result in a decision that was(1) Unreasonable in light of the evidence presented and(2) Contrary to clearly established U.S.Supreme Court opinions in Mathis And Descamps

Question Presented (from Petition)

No question identified. : QUESTIONED PRESENTED 1. Did the District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals findings result in a decision that was(1) Unreasonable in ; . light of the evidence presented and(2) Contrary to clearly established U.S.Supreme Court opinions in Mathis And Déscamps. _ 2. Can a prior conviction under a state crimianl statue,whose(s) plain terms sweep in more conduct than a corresponding Federal statue,be a Categorical Match with the Federal Statue. 3. Is School property and school buses in New Jersey statue, Tee. N.J.Stat Ann 2C-35-2 " Alternative Locational Elements or : Means , and is School Property used for school purposes in . 2C-35-7 " Broader " than real property, comprising a school as defined under 21 U.S.C. 860, In light of Mathis. , IV Yy

Docket Entries

2019-03-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2019-02-22
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-04-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 14, 2019)

Attorneys

Arthur Sean Warner
Arthur Sean Warner — Petitioner
Arthur Sean Warner — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent