No. 20-731
Paul Winfield v. United States Probation & Pretrial Services, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: 18-USC-201 18-USC-666 constitutional-vagueness criminal-law federal-bribery McDonnell-v-US overbreadth statutory-interpretation statutory-overbreadth supreme-court-precedent vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2021-01-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether 18 U.S.C.A. § 666 suffers from the same constitutional infirmities of vagueness and overbreadth as 18 U.S.C.A. § 201 under McDonnell v. U.S.
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Since 18 U.S.C.A. § 666 is even broader than other federal bribery statutes, does it suffer from the same constitutional infirmities of vagueness and overbreadth as this Court found in the application of another bribery statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 201, in McDonnell v. U.S., 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016)?
Docket Entries
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-09
Waiver of right of respondent United States Probation & Pretrial Services to respond filed.
2020-11-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 28, 2020)
Attorneys
Paul Winfield
Graham Patrick Carner — Graham P. Carner, PLLC, Petitioner
Graham Patrick Carner — Graham P. Carner, PLLC, Petitioner
United States Probation & Pretrial Services
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent