No. 20-5927
Gene Michael Diulio v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255 circuit-split due-process federal-procedure habeas-corpus johnson-ruling johnson-v-united-states mandatory-sentencing mandatory-sentencing-guidelines residual-clause sentencing-guidelines vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-11-20
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Are 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), raising due-process, vagueness, mandatory-sentencing-guidelines, residual-clause
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Questions Presented for Review IL Are 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, 135 8. Ct. 2551 (2015), raising due process vagueness challenges to fixed sentences imposed through application of a mandatory Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause timely? I. Does federal armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) constitute a crime of violence under the physical force clause or the enumerated offense clause as defined by the pre-2005 mandatory Sentencing Guidelines? i
Docket Entries
2020-11-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-11-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/20/2020.
2020-11-02
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-09-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2020)
Attorneys
Gene Diulio
Amy B. Cleary — Federal Public Defender, District of Nevada, Petitioner
United States of America
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent