No. 18-8327
Robert Nathan Alm v. United States
Tags: 18-usc-2113 18-usc-924(c) 18-usc-924c bank-robbery categorical-approach court-of-appeals criminal-law federal-bank-robbery federal-crime intimidation legal-interpretation specific-intent statutory-construction statutory-interpretation sufficiency-of-the-evidence
Key Terms:
Takings HabeasCorpus
Takings HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-04-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can the courts of appeals define the crime of federal bank robbery differently for purposes of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge than for a categorical-approach challenge?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Can the courts of appeals define the crime of federal bank robbery differently for purposes of a challenge than for a challenge? prefix
Docket Entries
2019-04-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-03-14
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-03-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 8, 2019)
Attorneys
Robert Nathan Alm
Kara Lee Hartzler — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
Kara Lee Hartzler — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent