No. 18-9643

Herichie Paul v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2019-06-12
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-law due-process johnson-v-united-states sessions-v-dimaya statutory-interpretation vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
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 HawkinsCynthia Hawkins P.A., Petitioner
Cynthia Ann HawkinsCynthia Hawkins P.A., Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent