No. 19-7981

Marcos Robert Castaneda 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 criminal-law criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-28-usc-2255 johnson-v-united-states mandatory-sentencing-guidelines ninth-circuit residual-clause sentencing sentencing-guidelines timeliness void-for-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

Marcos Robert Castaneda
Brianna Fuller MircheffOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent