No. 19-7665
Marvie Chapman, Jr. v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: categorical-approach controlled-substance controlled-substance-offense criminal-statute divisibility felony-drug-offense mathis-standard mathis-v-united-states sentencing-enhancement serious-drug-offense statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Immigration Trademark
HabeasCorpus Immigration Trademark
Latest Conference:
2020-03-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a statute is indivisible for purposes of applying Mathis v. United States to 'controlled substance offense', 'serious drug offense', and 'felony drug offense' definitions?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Question Presented for Review How to determine whether a statute is indivisible for purposes of applying : : Mathis v. United States to “controlled substance offense”, “serious drug offense” and Felony drug offense” definition? i : . i 3 Parties and
Docket Entries
2020-03-30
Petition DENIED.
2020-03-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2020.
2020-03-05
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-02-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 16, 2020)
Attorneys
Marvie Chapman, Jr.
Stephen A. Swift — Klinger, Robinson & Ford LLP, Petitioner
Stephen A. Swift — Klinger, Robinson & Ford LLP, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent