No. 19-8820

Cesar Velazquez v. United States

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2020-06-25
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: armed-career-criminal-act career-offender constitutional-vagueness due-process liberty post-conviction-relief residual-clause sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a post-conviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging a sentence under the pre-2005 mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is timely when filed within one year of Johnson v. United States

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented is whether a postconviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging a sentence imposed under the pre-2005 mandatory version of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and based on the so-called “residual clause” of the careeroffender provision of the Guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) (1999), is timely when filed within one year of the decision of this Court in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held for the first time that the identically worded “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924, is unconstitutionally vague and that defendants cannot be subjected to sentence based on it. i

Docket Entries

2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-06-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 27, 2020)

Attorneys

Cesar Velazquez
Frederick William UlrichFederal Public Defender's Officer, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent