No. 20-5927

Gene Michael Diulio v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-10-06
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
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
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. ClearyFederal Public Defender, District of Nevada, Petitioner
United States of America
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent