No. 20-5928

Rick Lee Archer 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 habeas-corpus johnson-decision johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines residual-clause sentencing-guidelines vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-11-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Are 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitions filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), raising due process vagueness challenges to fixed sentences imposed through application of a mandatory Sentencing Guidelines' residual clause timely?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented for Review I. Are 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitions 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-2016 Sentencing Guidelines? i

Docket Entries

2020-11-09
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.
2020-10-19
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-09-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2020)

Attorneys

Rick Archer
Amy B. ClearyFederal Public Defender, District of Nevada, Petitioner
Amy B. ClearyFederal Public Defender, District of Nevada, Petitioner
United States of America
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent