No. 20-6137
Arvester Lamonica Anderson v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: armed-career-criminal-act drug-offense force knowledge-requirement physical-force robbery robbery-offense snatching statutory-interpretation violent-felony
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-12-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does a state robbery offense that may be committed through mere snatching qualify as a 'violent felony' under the Armed Career Criminal Act?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Does a state robbery offense that may be committed through mere snatching “have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another” as is necessary for an offense to qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act? Il. Does the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of a “serious drug offense” require knowledge of the substance’s illicit nature, an issue left undecided in Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779, 787 n.3 (2020)? i
Docket Entries
2020-12-07
Petition DENIED.
2020-11-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.
2020-11-04
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-10-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 27, 2020)
Attorneys
Arvester Anderson
Adam Labonte — Federal Defender's Office, Petitioner
Adam Labonte — Federal Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent