No. 19-6195

Alejandro Martinez v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-10-07
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: 18-usc-924c3b civil-rights collateral-review constitutional-law criminal-procedure equal-protection federal-appeals pro-se-petition retroactive-application retroactivity supreme-court-review unconstitutionally-vague united-states-courts united-states-v-davis vagueness
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2020-01-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the retroactive application of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019) holding 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) as unconstitutionally vague should be applied to the petitioner's case, which was already on appeal at the time of the Davis decision, thus requiring the reversal of his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : | | { JUESTEONS PRESENTED FO2. REVIEW) | | “Whe decision Wnelous was Sustained Wecause the NENT CoeurtT —__ haaar oF appeau Fated ko vecognize. Hak \BUS.CS A2N(EVED Uras Is tne tiene... Ak tho leas, Anatole. Qmnony Susrist of Ceasonlas lneiAg f___. Lncoosih onally vague. This w9as Sore usta the denislof the CEarrercnre : i ACCEALNOTLA However enon, the NENT CROCUET subsequently on co Is : jon Sac RENEARTNG Foiled 4p ever (ecognize rar tne SUREME Cone ft ANETED SIATES vDavrs, ceorie 18-U3\ Tune pat, 201d oxplicitiy edd rok le US.C.5 24E)(3 BY 15 ndeed Unconsihutionals As a Cesulh tne petition l Cfin 1S nev Ino scan of Sudicial Leman, \.e.(sti\on appellate view of le pal 7 cu. £5228 A_gosruced where “rhe Fina of & Sienuianvois 26 US.C5 _—. LC Dees Tres Cousss Decesson Ty Sines v-DAvES S82 USBF Sex, 8314 (2010) HolDENIG Tat IR.US.CS G24 TS ALSO . AN CONSTITUTE On ALIn| VAGUE. ALTER THE RANGE OF Conmuct 0 CLASS OF _ 3B,JO4 S.ck \LO,10 L.EA.2d 334 (\4aa) Daves suerais a NEW SuastaNTIve Qube! ___ AYE UNTIED Sirens v DAVES 568 US. Sor 2314 (29a)TS ANEW Ks aSTaANerve QULE Dees ENS Worn EN Combenatinon! WET WELCH | Lasenen PIES S18 _U,S._,\3lo $,.c4.at ZE4S263 ComOEl THE Concuusron IMAC THE ENUNLGKSTEOnS OF DAVES supe Shout Be AppLtED REtHoncREt| MNO AS USCS AZ4 (CO) Ee ssues THAT WERE ALRERDN Ow AOPEAL ATTHE Trme. _(S) ese TE Deveanenep WaT UNTIED STATES yDaves ses Lis vaas.ex 2312 (2o0)TS ANEW SuasranPrve Rule Wourclh Muse ‘ Is GIven RETRoneTeve EFFECT TO Cases on OLLATERAL REVTEW, DE) Lo NENT CEQOXEY COMMET CLEAR. FRe08 ANT THUS OFFEND THE b TEYEONERS EQUALITY OF Lavd BY REFUSENG TD Appl THE NEW RULE hy Tans Tuscan case QeenG A Feast EeleD 23USCS2255IN ts SADTIRTON ToTWE CDEAL Abmeninsraancon of Sustne see, LONE Due XOSE CA AS_Crosen AS TE OCCASTON Fok. ANNDUNEENG ie N PRENCLOLE ~ENSOYS RETROACTIVE AQoLECATEaN, Wire OTMERS | i i | | i, . | | | GQ TY pe NIERESTED DARITES , ALL PROTEES Append rai THE CACTEON GE TNE CASE OW NE ANEQ PAGE. —— : l | | | | | = TA@le OF Contreurs _ | | MALE OF AUTMoarrn wv | pcrssrn! Tae Loser OF CEPA que —— | ppsesen 85 qq ED > | sce MENT Of 3 ee oe na ENT.O CASE a : TETTONERS Orcwr DME OST SS CLERC. INN) FAT 2 g_

Docket Entries

2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-06
Reply of petitioner Alejandro Martinez filed.
2019-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-06
Memorandum of respondent United States In Oppositon filed.
2019-11-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 6, 2019.
2019-11-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 6, 2019 to December 6, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-09-30
Supplemental brief of petitioner Alejandro Martinez filed.
2019-09-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 6, 2019)

Attorneys

Alejandro Martinez
Alejandro Martinez — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent