No. 20-5081
Clarence Hoffert v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-1521 criminal-intent criminal-statute due-process false-lien federal-false-lien-statute intent-standard mens-rea statutory-interpretation vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the interpretation of the federal false lien statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1521, adopted by the court of appeals in this case is unconstitutionally vague
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented is whether the interpretation of the federal false lien statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1521, adopted by the court of appeals in this case — as permitting conviction whenever an individual “had reason to know” that the lien he or she filed was false, even if the individual lacked actual knowledge of the lien’s falsity and acted without any culpable criminal intent — is unconstitutionally vague. i
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-07-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 14, 2020)
Attorneys
Clarence Hoffert
Quin M. Sorenson — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
Quin M. Sorenson — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent