No. 19-7434
Andrea Zambrano v. United States
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
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. Overmyer — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Wendi L. Overmyer — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent