No. 20-6027
Michael Moore v. United States
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (3)IFP
Tags: appellate-review controlled-substances criminal-law federal-sentencing gvr mens-rea rehaif-v-united-states statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2021-06-17
(distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether §924(e)(2)(A)(ii) requires knowledge of the substance's illicit nature
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Petitioner questions wehether even if §924(e)(2)(A)(ii) does not call for a analysis, does it require knowledge of the substance’s illicit nature? 2. Whether GVR is warranted in Petitiooner's case in light of Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. (2019)?
Docket Entries
2021-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2021-02-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/19/2021.
2021-02-10
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2021-01-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 10, 2021.
2021-01-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 11, 2021 to February 10, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-12-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 11, 2021.
2020-12-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 10, 2020 to January 11, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-11-10
Response Requested. (Due December 10, 2020)
2020-10-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.
2020-10-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-10-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 16, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent