No. 19-6838
Joshua Smith v. Sandra Butler, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2241 28-usc-2255 appellate-review caselaw federal-procedure guideline-range habeas-corpus incorrect-guideline-range mandatory-guidelines savings-clause sentencing sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Courts of Appeals have incorrectly interpreted the 'savings clause' found in 28 USC 2255(e)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED : Whether the Courts of Appeals have incorrectly interpreted the ‘savings clause’ , found in 28 USC 2255(e), to require that a defendant be sentenced under mandatory guidelines in order to proceed under 28 USC 2241 by way of 2255(e) when ; a sentence was based on an incorrect guideline range and subsequent caselaw reveals the error. ; : ; iil
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-12
Waiver of right of respondent Sandra Butler, Warden to respond filed.
2019-11-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 3, 2020)
Attorneys
Joshua Smith
Joshua Smith — Petitioner
Sandra Butler, Warden
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent