No. 20-6143
Saul Mangual-Corchado v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: carjacking-statute civil-rights crime-of-violence criminal-law due-process force-clause johnson-standard residual-clause sentencing statutory-interpretation vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-12-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the federal carjacking offense constitutes a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; Il. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A W.0.C. AND ADDRESS WHETHER THE FEDERAL CARJACKING OFFENSE DOES CONSTITUTE A "CRIME OF VIOLENCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)...-00-5 | page 13 Cc. REASONABLE JURIST ARE DIVIDED ON WHETHER THE ELEMENT OF "BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION" DOES MEET THE"JOHNSON I" VIOLENT AND FORCE THRESHOLD. HOLDING THE DAVIS RULING... page 18 D. REASONABLE JURIST COULD FIND DEBATABLE THE ISSUE WHETHER CARJACKING'S INTIMIDATIONS ELEMENT REQUIRES A VOLITIONAL THREAT OF A VIOLENT FORCE. «
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.
2020-09-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 27, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent