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 preBooker 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
2021-06-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2020-08-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-08-11
Reply of petitioner Velasquez, Benjamin filed. (Distributed)
2020-07-29
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2020-06-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 29, 2020.
2020-06-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 1, 2020 to July 29, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-06-01
Response Requested. (Due July 1, 2020)
2020-05-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/28/2020.
2020-04-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2020.
2020-04-09
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-04-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 6, 2020)