No. 19-6785
Bobbie London, Jr. v. United States
IFP
Tags: career-offender-guideline constitutional-vagueness due-process federal-habeas federal-procedure habeas-corpus habeas-petition johnson-ruling johnson-v-united-states mandatory-career-offender-guideline residual-clause statute-of-limitations unconstitutionally-vague vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Are habeas petitions challenging sentences fixed by the mandatory career offender guideline timely if filed within one year of Johnson v. United States?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Under the statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas proceedings, are habeas petitions challenging sentences fixed by the mandatory career offender guideline timely if filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, 135 8. Ct. 2551 (2015)? 2. Is the residual clause of the mandatory career offender guideline unconstitutionally vague under the rule announced in Johnson? ii
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2019-12-27
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-11-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 27, 2019)
Attorneys
Bobbie London, Jr.
Celia Rhoads — Federal Public Defender - EDLA, Petitioner
Celia Rhoads — Federal Public Defender - EDLA, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent