No. 19-7434

Andrea Zambrano v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-01-27
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: 18-usc-924 18-usc-924c3b carjacking-statute crime-of-violence criminal-law due-process elements-clause residual-clause retroactivity sentencing statutory-interpretation united-states-v-davis
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), retroactively invalidates the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented For Review 1. Whether United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), retroactively invalidates the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). 2. Whether “intimidation,” as used in the federal carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, is not a crime of violence because a threat of mental or non-corporeal harm cannot satisfy the “ase, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force” required by the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). ii

Docket Entries

2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-02-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-01-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 26, 2020)

Attorneys

Andrea Zambrano
Wendi L. OvermyerOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Wendi L. OvermyerOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent