No. 20-5596
Kevin Dean Green v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: beckles-v-united-states constitutional-challenge criminal-statute due-process judicial-review legal-interpretation sentencing-guideline sentencing-guidelines vagueness-challenge vagueness-doctrine void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-10-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does Beckles v. United States foreclose a vagueness challenge to a sentencing guideline when the operative term in that guideline is defined by a criminal statute, which is subject to a vagueness challenge?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Question Presented Does Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 187 S. Ct. 886 (2017) foreclose a vagueness challenge to a sentencing guideline when the operative term in that guideline is defined by a criminal statute, which is subject to a vagueness challenge? i. v ' : Il.
Docket Entries
2020-10-13
Petition DENIED.
2020-09-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
2020-09-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-08-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 5, 2020)
Attorneys
Kevin Green
Nathaniel Abel Nieman — Nate Nieman, Attorney at Law, Petitioner
Nathaniel Abel Nieman — Nate Nieman, Attorney at Law, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent