No. 18-8042
Aaron Maurice Blaylock, aka Stephan Blaylock v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-U.S.C-924(c)(3)(B) 18-usc-924(c)(3)(B) 18-usc-924c 28-usc-2255 certificate-of-appealability constitutional-challenge due-process habeas-corpus johnson-v-united-states motion-to-vacate residual-clause unconstitutional
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-03-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should a certificate of appealability have issued after the district court denied as untimely a 28-U.S.C-2255-motion
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Should a certificate of appealability have issued after the district court denied as untimely a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate that sought to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) based on this Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 92.4(e)(2)(B)Gi) to be unconstitutional? ii
Docket Entries
2019-03-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2019.
2019-02-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-02-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 25, 2019)
Attorneys
Aaron Maurice Blaylock, aka Stephan Blaylock
Christopher Aaron Holt — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent