No. 20-7785
Kevino Graham v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-vagueness criminal-procedure criminal-statute due-process effective-assistance-of-counsel human-trafficking sixth-amendment statutory-interpretation vagueness
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2021-05-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether petitioner Graham was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to challenge
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (A.) "WHETHER PETITIONER GRAHAM WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN COUNSEL FAILED TO CHALLENGE; "WHETHER 18 U.S.C. 1591(a) IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE?" ; (B.) "WHETHER 18 U.S.C. 1591(a) IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE BECAUSE OF THE CLEAR UNCERTAINTY AS TO "WHETHER THE STATUTE DEFINES ONE OFFENSE OR MULTIPLE OFFENSES?"
Docket Entries
2021-05-17
Petition DENIED.
2021-04-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
2021-04-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-01-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 17, 2021)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent