No. 19-5307
James D. Brigman v. United States
Tags: criminal-justice criminal-law criminal-procedure due-process johnson-rule johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines residual-clause retroactivity sentencing sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the new rule announced in Johnson applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), the new rule announced in Johnson applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2)? II. Whether the residual clause of the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), is void for vagueness? i
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Petition DENIED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
2019-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-09-18
Rescheduled.
2019-08-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-07-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 23, 2019)
Attorneys
James Brigman, et al.
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent