No. 18-9323
Donald Duhart v. United States
IFP
Tags: 18-usc-924 constitutional-challenge constitutional-law crime-of-violence criminal-law due-process federal-statute sentencing sentencing-enhancement statutory-interpretation vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is the residual clause definition of 'crime of violence' in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Is the residual clause definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no parties interested in the proceeding other than those named in the caption of the case. 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 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.
2019-05-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 17, 2019)
Attorneys
Donald Duhart
Richard A. Merlino Jr. — Voluck & Merlino, P.L., Petitioner
Richard A. Merlino Jr. — Voluck & Merlino, P.L., Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent