No. 18-8393
Tags: categorical-approach constitutional-challenge criminal-law due-process sessions-v-dimaya statutory-interpretation supreme-court-precedent vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Immigration JusticiabilityDoctri
HabeasCorpus Immigration JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-06-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), where the text and legislative history demand the categorical approach, is unconstitutionally vague in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018)?
Docket Entries
2019-06-17
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.
2019-05-13
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-04-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 13, 2019.
2019-04-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 11, 2019 to May 13, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-03-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 11, 2019)
2018-12-14
Application (18A621) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until March 8, 2019.
2018-12-11
Application (18A621) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 7, 2019 to March 8, 2019, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Attorneys
Irma Ovalles
Whitman Matthew Dodge — Federal Defender Program Inc., Petitioner
Whitman Matthew Dodge — Federal Defender Program Inc., Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent