No. 21-6589
Lamont Guinyard v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 2nd-amendment commerce-clause congressional-authority constitutional-challenge criminal-law criminal-statute federal-jurisdiction federal-law firearm-possession firearms statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2022-01-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which criminalizes a defendant’s possession of a firearm or ammunition, is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. i PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE United States District Court (M.D. Fla.): United States v. Lamont Guinyard, No. 8:18-cr-592-SDM-AEP (Jan. 13, 2020) United States Court of Appeals (11th Cir.): United States v. Lamont Guinyard, No. 20-10312 (July 12, 2021) ii
Docket Entries
2022-01-10
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-12-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-12-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 13, 2022)
Attorneys
Lamont Guinyard
M. Allison Guagliardo — Office of the Federal Defender, Petitioner
M. Allison Guagliardo — Office of the Federal Defender, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent