No. 19-5308
IFP
Tags: 18-usc-924 18-usc-924c civil-rights conviction criminal-law criminal-procedure due-process federal-statute residual-clause sentence sentencing-enhancement statutory-interpretation supreme-court-precedent united-states-v-davis void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-11-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness
Question Presented (from Petition)
Question Presented 1. Whether the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness, a question that the Court has now answered in United States v. Davis, 588 U.S.___— (2019)?
Docket Entries
2019-12-06
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2019-11-04
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. ___ (2019).
2019-10-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.
2019-09-25
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-08-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 25, 2019.
2019-08-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 26, 2019 to September 25, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-07-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 26, 2019)
Attorneys
Oscar Minaya
Andrew St Laurent — Harris St. Laurent LLP, Petitioner
Andrew St Laurent — Harris St. Laurent LLP, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent