No. 19-568

Jose Susumo Azano Matsura v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-10-30
Status: GVR
Type: Paid
Tags: 18-usc-922 constitutional-vagueness criminal-law due-process firearm-regulation mens-rea rehaif-v-united-states statutory-interpretation vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess Immigration
Latest Conference: 2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Should the Court grant review, vacate the judgment below, and remand to the Ninth Circuit based on this Court's holding in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), requiring guilty knowledge of one's status as an element of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(B)?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Should the Court grant review, vacate the judgment below, and remand to the Ninth Circuit based on this Court’s holding in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), requiring guilty knowledge of one’s status as an element of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(B)? 2. Are 18 U.S.C. § 922(g¢)(5)(B) and attendant regulations unconstitutionally vague on their face or as applied to petitioner?

Docket Entries

2020-03-27
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2020-02-24
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>Rehaif v. United States</i>, 588 U. S. ___ (2019).
2020-01-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2019-12-27
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-11-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 30, 2019.
2019-11-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 29, 2019 to December 30, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-10-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 29, 2019)

Attorneys

Jose Azano Matsura
Charles M SevillaLaw Office of Charles Sevilla, Petitioner
Charles M SevillaLaw Office of Charles Sevilla, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent