No. 19-7958

Anthony Quinones v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-03-12
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: career-offender career-offender-guideline constitutional-vagueness criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-28-usc-2255 johnson-v-united-states residual-clause section-2255 sentencing timeliness timeliness-standard vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2020-05-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, claiming that Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender guideline, asserts a 'right ... initially recognized' in Johnson for timeliness purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(8)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented 1. Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, claiming that Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the preBooker career offender guideline, asserts a “right .. . initially recognized” in Johnson for timeliness purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(8). 2. Whether, in light of Johnson, the residual clause of the mandatory guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. i Statement of

Docket Entries

2020-05-04
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2020.
2020-04-10
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-03-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 13, 2020)

Attorneys

Anthony Quinones
Brianna Fuller MircheffOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Brianna Fuller MircheffOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent