No. 19-1390
Martin Johnson v. United States
Response Waived
Tags: armed-career-criminal-act circuit-split criminal-law due-process elements-clause fair-notice sentencing statutory-interpretation vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the 'elements clause' of the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)) is void for vagueness
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the “elements clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)) is void for vagueness.
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-06-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 20, 2020)
Attorneys
Martin Johnson
Joshua Morgan Wesneski — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Petitioner
Joshua Morgan Wesneski — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent