No. 19-7114
Joe Lewis Finley v. United States
Tags: career-offender-guideline constitutional-vagueness due-process federal-habeas federal-sentencing habeas-corpus habeas-proceedings johnson-ruling johnson-v-united-states mandatory-career-offender sentencing statute-of-limitations vagueness
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)
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 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION 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 S. 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. 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).
2020-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-14
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-12-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 30, 2020)
Attorneys
Joe Lewis Finley
James Matthew Wright — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
James Matthew Wright — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent