No. 21-5105
Cedric Antonio Wright v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: bodily-harm carjacking criminal-intent criminal-law driver-cooperation intent intent-interpretation mens-rea statutory-interpretation supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Securities Immigration
AdministrativeLaw Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court correctly ruled in Holloway v. United States that a carjacker's intent to seriously harm or kill the driver can be conditioned on the driver's cooperation
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether this Court correctly ruled in Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (1999) that during a carjacking, a person’s intent to seriously harm or kill the driver can be conditioned on whether or not the driver cooperates with the car jackers demands.
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-07-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-07-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 13, 2021)
Attorneys
Cedric Wright
Cory Goldensoph — Cory Goldensoph, P.C., Petitioner
Cory Goldensoph — Cory Goldensoph, P.C., Petitioner
United States
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent