No. 19-6016
IFP
Tags: 18-usc-924(c)(3) 18-usc-924c3 abrogation appellate-review case-law-abrogation circuit-court-decision criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-28-usc-2255 due-process eleventh-circuit habeas-corpus ovalles-v-united-states section-2255-motion statutory-interpretation supreme-court-review united-states-v-davis
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-11-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Eleventh Circuit's decision denying petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion should be vacated due to reliance on an abrogated opinion
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether, in light of this Court’s most recent decision, in United States v. Davis, 13958. Ct. 2319 (2019), which abrogated the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s en banc decision in Ovalles v. United States, 905 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2018) (en banc), the decision of the Eleventh Circuit affirming denying of petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because of reliance upon the now-abrogated Ovailes opinion, should be vacated? i INTERESTED PARTIES The are no
Docket Entries
2019-12-27
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2019-11-25
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).
2019-11-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019.
2019-10-21
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-07-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 21, 2019)
Attorneys
Devon Chance
Michael G. Smith — Attorney at Law, Petitioner
Michael G. Smith — Attorney at Law, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent