No. 19-6818
Tags: criminal-law criminal-procedure due-process johnson-rule johnson-v-united-states residual-clause retroactivity sentencing sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the new rule announced in Johnson v. United States applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), the new rule announced in Johnson v. United States, 135 8.Ct. 2551 (2015), applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2)? II. Whether the residual clause of the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), is void for vagueness? i
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in <i>Brown v. United States</i>, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
2020-01-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-02
Memorandum of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
2019-11-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 2, 2020)
Attorneys
John Ward
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent