No. 18-9830
Michael Franklin Einfeldt v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 2255-petition burden-of-proof criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus johnson-ruling johnson-v-united-states residual-clause sentencing sentencing-guidelines violent-felonies violent-felony
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitioner should be required to affirmatively prove the sentencing court relied on the residual clause
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether, where the record is unclear, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitioner should be required to “affirmatively prove” that the sentencing court relied on the residual clause to determine that his prior offenses were violent felonies, before he is entitled to pursue a claim for relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-06-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 29, 2019)
Attorneys
Michael Franklin Einfeldt
Nova Danielle Janssen — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent