Whether the void-for-vagueness doctrine and Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), apply to the mandatory, pre-United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), United States Sentencing Guidelines

QUESTION PRESENTED The Seventh Circuit holds that the void-for-vagueness doctrine and Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), apply to the mandatory, pre-United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), United States Sentencing Guidelines. Cross v. United States, 892 F.3d 288 (CA7 2018). In Moore v. United States, 871 F.3d 72 (CA1 2017), the First Circuit registered agreement with the Seventh that mandatory sentencing guidelines can be too vague to be valid, but resolved the case on other grounds and hasn’t revisited the issue. See Brown v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 14 (Oct. 15, 2018) (Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginzburg, dissenting from denial of certiorari, recognizing Moore “strongly hint[s]” agreement with Cross); see also see also United States v. Moore, 2018 WL 5982017 (D. Mass.) (Nov. 14, 2018) (ruling mandatory guideline unconstitutionally vague). Other circuits hold the vagueness doctrine and Johnson don’t apply to the mandatory Guidelines. United States v. Green, 898 F.3d 315 (CA3 2018); United States v. Brown, 868 F.3d 297 (CA4 2017); United States v. London, 937 F.3d 502 (CA5 2019); Raybon v. United States, 867 F.3d 625 (CA6 2017); Russo v. United States, 902 F.3d 880 (CA8 2018); United States v. Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020 (CA9 2018); United States v. Greer, 881 F.3d 1241 (CA10 2018); In re Griffin, 823 F.3d 1350 (CA11 2016). Who is right? -i