No. 18-9643
Herichie Paul v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-law due-process johnson-v-united-states sessions-v-dimaya statutory-interpretation vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), where the text and legislative history demand the categorical approach, is unconstitutionally vague in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018)? Whether carjacking or attempted carjacking are crimes of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause, in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct.2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015)? i
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-19
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-06-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 12, 2019)
Attorneys
Herichie Paul
Cynthia Ann Hawkins — Cynthia Hawkins P.A., Petitioner
Cynthia Ann Hawkins — Cynthia Hawkins P.A., Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent