No. 19-8688
Richard Dale Ingram, Jr. v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: arkansas-law categorical-approach criminal-law divisibility divisibility-analysis eighth-circuit jury-unanimity mathis-standard mathis-v-united-states statutory-interpretation terroristic-threatening
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the divisibility analysis prescribed in Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), to the Arkansas first-degree terroristic threatening statute?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the divisibility analysis prescribed in Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), to the Arkansas firs-degree terroristic threatening statute? ii
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-06-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-22
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-06-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 13, 2020)
Attorneys
Richard Dale Ingram, Jr.
Anna Marie Williams Jr. — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
Anna Marie Williams Jr. — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent