No. 19-5089

Clifford B. Gandy, Jr. v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2019-07-05
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: categorical-approach crime-of-violence divisible-offense divisible-statute modified-categorical-approach nolo-contendere physical-force plea-bargaining sentencing-guidelines shepard-documents
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2019-11-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Where a divisible offense may be committed two ways, one of which satisfies the 'crime of violence' element of physical force, and one of which does not, and where the factual basis for the plea could establish either offense, may the federal sentencing court find the defendant was necessarily convicted of the qualifying offense, or must the federal court presume the defendant was convicted of the non-qualifying offense?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I Where a divisible offense may be committed two ways, one of which satisfies the “crime of violence” element of physical force, and one of which does not, and where the factual basis for the plea could establish either offense, may the federal sentencing court find the defendant was necessarily convicted of the qualifying offense, as in the case below, or must the federal court presume the defendant was convicted of the non-qualifying offense, as in United States v. Horse Looking, 828 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2016)? II Whether convictions based upon pleas of nolo contendere support the application of the modified categorical approach to establish a Guidelines “crime of violence” where the Florida convictions do not incorporate admissions of guilt, like the guilty pleas in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), and whether the district court violated the Full Faith & Credit statute because Florida courts would not construe the prior judgments to encompass findings of battery by “intentionally causing bodily harm” necessary to establish the “physical force” element of a crime of violence? [NOTE: This petition presents the same issues presented in the petition for writ of certiorari filed to review United States v. Lee, 2019 WL 2448250 (11th Cir. June 11, 2019), filed contemporaneously herewith.] i PARTIES INVOLVED All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. ii

Docket Entries

2019-11-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2019.
2019-10-16
Reply of petitioner Clifford Gandy filed.
2019-10-04
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2019-08-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 4, 2019.
2019-08-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 4, 2019 to October 4, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-08-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 4, 2019.
2019-07-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 5, 2019 to September 4, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-07-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 5, 2019)

Attorneys

Clifford Gandy
Richard Michael SummaFederal Public Defender, Northern District of Florida, Petitioner
Richard Michael SummaFederal Public Defender, Northern District of Florida, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent