No. 19-7726
Larry Watkins, Sr. v. United States
Tags: bail bail-reform-act constitutional-vagueness crime-of-violence moot-question mootness pretrial-bail residual-clause sessions-v-dimaya supreme-court-precedent united-states-v-davis vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-03-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the judgment below should be vacated for deciding a moot question
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the judgment below should be vacated for deciding a moot question. The question was whether Petitioner, who had already been convicted, merited pretrial bail. In discussing that question, the court held the residual clause definition of “crime of violence” in the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4)(B), is not unconstitutionally vague. The court so ruled despite this Court invalidating, as unconstitutionally vague, the identical clause at § 16(b) and § 924(c)(3)(B). See Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018); United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). i
Docket Entries
2020-03-30
Petition DENIED.
2020-03-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2020.
2020-03-10
Supplemental brief of petitioner Larry Watkins filed. (Distributed)
2020-03-06
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-02-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 23, 2020)
Attorneys
Larry Watkins
Matthew B. Larsen — Federal Defenders of New York, Petitioner
Matthew B. Larsen — Federal Defenders of New York, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent