No. 20-8275
Paul Xavier Espinoza v. United States
Tags: actus-reus circuit-split criminal-law hobbs-act plain-language robbery robbery-definition statutory-interpretation violent-physical-force
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2021-11-05
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Circuits have interpreted the actus reus of Hobbs Act robbery too narrowly and against its plain language by requiring violent physical force as an element
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
question presented is whether the Circuits have interpreted the actus reus of Hobbs Act robbery too narrowly and against its plain language by requiring violent physical force as an element. 1
Docket Entries
2021-11-08
Petition DENIED.
2021-10-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/5/2021.
2021-10-21
Reply of petitioners Paul Espinoza, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2021-10-07
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2021-09-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 7, 2021.
2021-08-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 7, 2021 to October 7, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-07-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 7, 2021.
2021-07-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 6, 2021 to September 6, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-07-07
Response Requested. (Due August 6, 2021)
2021-06-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-06-14
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-06-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 12, 2021)
Attorneys
Paul Espinoza, et al.
Amy B. Cleary — Federal Public Defender, District of Nevada, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent