No. 20-8186
Michael James Young, Jr. and Vance Edward Volious, Jr. v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-law explosives first-amendment fourth-circuit law-enforcement mail-fraud non-mailable-matter postal-service statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Environmental AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-06-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit err by ruling that 18 United States Code Section 1716 prohibits as non-mailable an inert device manufactured by law enforcement so that it could not explode?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW DID THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ERR BY RULING THAT 18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1716 PROHIBTS AS NON-MAILABLE AN INERT DEVICE MANUFACTURED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT SO THAT IT COULD NOT EXPLODE?
Docket Entries
2021-06-28
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.
2021-06-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2021-05-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 1, 2021)
Attorneys
Michael Young, et al.
Jonathan McKey Milling — Milling Law Firm, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent