No. 19-8645
Joe Cephus Ross v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: child-pornography due-process mandatory-minimum prosecutorial-discretion sentencing separation-of-powers statutory-interpretation void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess FifthAmendment
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess FifthAmendment
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does 18 U.S.C. § 2252A violate the Due Process Clause and the void-for-vagueness doctrine?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED Does 18 U.S.C. § 2252A violate the Due Process Clause and the doctrine because the statute allows a prosecutor to unilaterally select not only the statutory maximum sentence but also the statutory mandatory minimum sentence by choosing to charge either receipt or possession of child pornography when there is no difference between the two offenses, and the two offenses involve the same conduct and the same harm? 1
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-06-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-12
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-06-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 9, 2020)
Attorneys
Joe Cephus Ross
H. Michael Sokolow — Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
H. Michael Sokolow — Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent