No. 19-6769
Tags: certificate-of-appealability criminal-procedure debatable-among-jurists-of-reason johnson-v-united-states jurists-of-reason mandatory-guidelines mandatory-sentencing ninth-circuit sentencing-guidelines u.s.s.g.-4b1.2(a)(2) vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-01-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Ninth Circuit misapplied this Court's 'debatable among jurists of reason' standard for a certificate of appealability
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit misapplied this Court’s “debatable among jurists of reason” standard for a certificate of appealability. 2. Whether the residual clause of the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines at U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is void for vagueness. prefix
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.
2020-01-07
Reply of petitioner Steven Hicks filed. (Distributed)
2019-12-26
Memorandum of respondent United States of America filed.
2019-11-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 26, 2019)
Attorneys
Steven Hicks
Kara Lee Hartzler — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
Kara Lee Hartzler — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent