No. 19-7974
Tags: 28-usc-2255 career-offender career-offender-guideline constitutional-vagueness criminal-procedure johnson-v-united-states residual-clause section-2255 sentencing timeliness-standard
Latest Conference:
2020-05-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. 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).
2. Whether, in light of Johnson, the residual
clause of the mandatory guidelines is
unconstitutionally vague.
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)
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
Jesse Moreno
Brianna Fuller Mircheff — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent