No. 18-9161
Robert Leonard Wood v. United States
Tags: appellate-review beckles-precedent beckles-v-united-states criminal-law johnson johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines residual-clause sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-06-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court should resolve the question left open by Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), that continues to divide the courts of appeal: whether the residual clause of the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines at U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is void for vagueness
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Court should resolve the question left open by Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), that continues to divide the courts of appeal: whether the residual clause of the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines at U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is void for vagueness. prefix
Docket Entries
2019-06-10
Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
2019-05-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2019.
2019-05-14
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-05-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 6, 2019)
Attorneys
Robert Leonard Wood
Kara Lee Hartzler — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
Kara Lee Hartzler — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent