No. 20-6466
Louis Anthony Jackson v. United States
IFP
Tags: 924(c) 924(c)-sentence certificate-of-appealability crime-of-violence criminal-procedure davis-decision due-process hobbs-act-robbery residual-clause sentencing
Key Terms:
Immigration
Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-02-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a certificate of appealability should have been granted
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED [1] WHETHER A.CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, WHERE MR. JACKSON ARGUED THAT IN LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S DECISION IN UNITED STATES v. DAVIS, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), WHICH INVALIDATED THE RESIDUAL ; CLAUSE OF § 924(c) (3), HIS SENTENCE UNDER § 924(c) IS NOW INVALIDATED SINCE HOBBS ACT ROBBERY IS NO LONGER CATEGORICALLY CONSIDERED TO BE A CRIME OF VIOLENCE? SEE, UNITED STATES v. CHEA, .2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177651 . (N.D. Cal. October 2, 2019). . Ww
Docket Entries
2021-03-01
Petition DENIED.
2021-02-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.
2021-01-27
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2020-12-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 27, 2021.
2020-12-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 28, 2020 to January 27, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-11-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 28, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent