No. 18-9234
IFP
Tags: constitutional-vagueness criminal-law due-process federal-procedure jury-determination second-amendment section-924c sentencing statutory-interpretation supreme-court united-states-v-davis vagueness
Key Terms:
Privacy
Privacy
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. (This question is presently before the Court in United States v. Davis, No. 18431.) 2. Whether, even if the Court ruled in Davis that § 924(c)(3)(B) is not unconstitutional, the application of that provision to Mendoza is nonetheless unconstitutional because the Second Circuit decided that a jury determination that Mendoza was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element of the offense of conviction could be dispensed with.
Docket Entries
2019-11-08
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2019-10-07
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. ___ (2019).
2019-07-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-12
Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.
2019-07-10
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-06-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 10, 2019.
2019-06-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 10, 2019 to July 10, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-05-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 10, 2019)
Attorneys
Rudy Mendoza
Jeremy Gutman — Jeremy Gutman, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent