No. 21-6465
Andrew John Gibson v. United States
Tags: appellate-review constitutional-challenge criminal-procedure due-process non-delegation-doctrine overbreadth sentencing-conditions supervised-release third-party-notification vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-01-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Must federal appellate courts adjudicate direct appeal challenges to the illegality or unconstitutionality of supervised release conditions imposed at sentencing?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Questions Presented For Review L Must federal appellate courts adjudicate direct appeal challenges to the illegality or unconstitutionality of supervised release conditions imposed at sentencing? I. Is the standard federal supervision condition requiring third-party risk-notification unconstitutional for its vagueness, overbreadth, and violation of the non-delegation doctrine? 1
Docket Entries
2022-01-10
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-12-14
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2021-11-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 3, 2022)
Attorneys
Andrew Gibson
Amy B. Cleary — Federal Public Defender, District of Nevada, Petitioner
Amy B. Cleary — Federal Public Defender, District of Nevada, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent