No. 19-7567
Tags: 18-usc-2111 18-usc-924 2nd-amendment crime-of-violence criminal-law dimaya-decision dimaya-vs-sessions due-process firearm-brandishing johnson-ruling johnson-v-united-states johnson-vs-united-states sessions-v-dimaya statutory-interpretation supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-03-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Mr. Ben's conviction for brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence should be vacated
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether, under Supreme Court precedent established in Johnson and Dimaya, Mr. Ben’s conviction for brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence should be vacated because robbery under § 2111 is no longer a “crime of violence.” i
Docket Entries
2020-03-09
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2020.
2020-02-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-01-31
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 6, 2020)
Attorneys
Richard Ben
Michael Scott — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent