No. 19-7103
Edward Merritt v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: administrative-law controlled-substance-offense criminal-law deference guideline-commentary inchoate-offenses judicial-deference sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-01-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is the definition of 'controlled substance offense' in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) genuinely ambiguous such that the guideline commentary can be used to reasonably interpret the definition as including inchoate offenses?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is the definition of “controlled substance offense” in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) genuinely ambiguous such that the guideline commentary can be used to reasonably interpret the definition as including inchoate offenses? 2. If so, should federal courts defer to the Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of “controlled substance offense”? i
Docket Entries
2020-01-27
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.
2020-01-06
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-12-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 29, 2020)
Attorneys
Edward Merritt
Becky Kurz — Federal Public Defender Office, Petitioner
Becky Kurz — Federal Public Defender Office, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent