No. 19-6670

Michael Bridge v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-11-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: 28-usc-2255 appellate-procedure brief-formatting career-offender constitutional-rights due-process johnson-v-united-states judicial-discretion mandatory-guidelines procedural-fairness residual-clause sentencing-guidelines timeliness Whether Pennsylvania Superior Court can dismiss an
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2020-01-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, claiming that Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender guideline, asserts a 'right .. . initially recognized' in Johnson for timeliness purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(8)

Question Presented (from Petition)

Questions Presented 1. Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, claiming that Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender guideline, asserts a “right .. . initially recognized” in Johnson for timeliness purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(8). 2. Whether, in light of Johnson, the residual clause of the mandatory guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. i Statement of

Docket Entries

2020-01-27
Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
2020-01-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.
2019-12-30
Reply of petitioner Michael Bridge filed.
2019-12-19
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-11-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 19, 2019)

Attorneys

Michael Bridge
Brianna Fuller MircheffOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Brianna Fuller MircheffOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent