No. 18-9302
IFP
Tags: 18-usc-924 appellate-procedure constitutional-challenge criminal-law due-process federal-statute residual-clause sentencing statutory-interpretation void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) void for vagueness?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) void for vagueness? 2. Should this Court hold petitioner’s case for a ruling in United States v. Davis, 903 F.3d 483 (5' Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 139 S.Ct. 782 (2019) (No. 18-431)? i
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).
2019-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-17
Memorandum of respondent United States Government filed.
2019-06-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 17, 2019.
2019-06-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 17, 2019 to July 17, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-05-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 17, 2019)
Attorneys
United States Government
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Xing Lin
Megan Wolfe Benett — Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, Petitioner