No. 19-8044
Brian Vidrine v. United States
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (3)IFP
Tags: 924(c) career-offender criminal-conviction criminal-law due-process johnson-decision johnson-v-united-states mandatory-enhancement section-924c sentencing sentencing-guidelines
Key Terms:
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2021-06-17
(distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Are Vidrine's § 924(c) convictions invalid in light of this Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and its progeny?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Are Vidrine’s § 924(c) convictions invalid in light of this Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and its progeny? 2. Does Johnson apply to the mandatory sentencing guidelines to invalidate the career offender sentencing enhancement applied to Vidrine? i
Docket Entries
2021-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2020-06-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-25
Reply of petitioner Brian Vidrine filed. (Distributed)
2020-06-08
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2020-05-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 8, 2020.
2020-05-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 8, 2020 to June 8, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-04-08
Response Requested. (Due May 8, 2020)
2020-04-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-03-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 20, 2020)
Attorneys
Brian Vidrine
Ann Catherine McClintock — Federal Defender's Office, Petitioner
Ann Catherine McClintock — Federal Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent