No. 20-5762
Will Robertson Brown v. United States
Tags: constitutional-review due-process federal-jurisdiction habeas-corpus judicial-precedent petition-standard retroactivity section-2255 successive-petitions unconstitutional-law
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2021-01-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a petitioner must show it is 'more likely than not' that a district court's prior ruling relied on a provision of law later deemed unconstitutional to establish jurisdiction over a second or successive § 2255 petition
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW At issue is whether, when a petitioner files a second or successive § 2255 petition, jurisdiction over the § 2255 issue hinges on a showing it is “more likely than not” that a district court’s prior ruling relied a provision of law that was later deemed unconstitutional. i
Docket Entries
2021-01-25
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
2020-12-23
Memorandum of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2020-11-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 23, 2020.
2020-11-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 23, 2020 to December 23, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-10-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 23, 2020.
2020-10-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 23, 2020 to November 23, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-09-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 23, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Will Robertson Brown
Michael Scott — Petitioner