No. 20-7909

Juan Pablo Price v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-05-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: criminal-law due-process knowledge-requirement mens-rea ninth-circuit sexual-assault sexual-contact statutory-construction statutory-interpretation supreme-court
Key Terms:
Arbitration Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the knowledge requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b) applies to all elements of the offense

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED Under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b), it is a federal crime to “knowingly engage[] in sexual contact with another person without that other person’s permission.” Petitioner argued in the district court and on appeal that the knowledge requirement applied both to the conduct of engaging in sexual contact with another and to the lack of consent. The Ninth Circuit panel majority concluded that the term “knowingly” modifies only the verb phrase “engages in sexual contact with another person” and does not modify the adverbial prepositional phrase “without that other person’s permission,” even though engaging in sexual contact with another person is not itself unlawful. As the judges who disagreed with the panel majority found, the majority’s decision violated several canons of statutory construction and was contrary to the holdings of several decisions of this Court— including Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009), and Rehaif v. United States, 139 8. Ct. 2191 (2019), among others—and of the en banc Eighth Circuit when it reviewed a related, nearly-identical statute. Accordingly, the question presented here is: Whether the knowledge requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b) applies to all elements of the offense, such that the government must prove both that the defendant knowing engaged in sexual contact with another person and that defendant knew he lacked that other person’s permission. i PARTIES AND PROCEEDINGS All

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-26
Reply of petitioner Juan Pablo Price filed. (Distributed)
2021-08-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-05
Brief of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
2021-06-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including August 5, 2021.
2021-06-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 6, 2021 to August 5, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-05-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 6, 2021.
2021-05-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 3, 2021 to July 6, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-04-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 3, 2021)

Attorneys

Juan Pablo Price
Jonathan David LibbyOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Jonathan David LibbyOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Respondent