No. 19-8071
Curtis Dion Earley v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-law constitutional-violation criminal-law due-process mens-rea sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation stolen-firearm
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess FifthAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess FifthAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-04-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the commentary at U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, Application Note 8, which does not require a mens rea to impose the stolen firearm enhancement at U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4), violate the Constitution or Congressional statutes?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED Does the commentary at U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, Application Note 8, which does not require a mens rea to impose the stolen firearm enhancement at U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4), violate the Constitution or Congressional statutes? i
Docket Entries
2020-04-20
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-26
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-03-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 22, 2020)
Attorneys
Curtis Dion Earley
John Palmer Rhodes — Federal Defenders of Montana, Petitioner
John Palmer Rhodes — Federal Defenders of Montana, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent