No. 18-8455

Marc Shiroma v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-03-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: bank-robbery constitutional crime-of-violence criminal-law due-process federal-bank-robbery ussg-4b1.2 void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2019-04-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is a threatened use of physical force against the person of another an element of federal bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. §2113(a), so as to make it a crime of violence under USSG §4B1.2(a)(1)'s elements clause, when the Ninth Circuit holds that nothing more than a demand for money suffices to support conviction?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is a threatened use of physical force against the person of another an element of federal bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. §2113(a), so as to make it a crime of violence under USSG §4B1.2(a)(1)’s elements clause, when the Ninth Circuit holds that nothing more than a demand for money suffices to support conviction? 2. Can a guideline violate the due process clause for a reason that is not grounded in the void-for-vagueness doctrine? -i

Docket Entries

2019-04-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-03-26
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-03-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 18, 2019)

Attorneys

Marc Shiroma
Peter Christian Wolff Jr.Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Peter Christian Wolff Jr.Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent