No. 21-7222
Hugo Valencia Mendoza v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-law criminal-law criminal-procedure due-process fifth-amendment sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation united-states-sentencing-guidelines vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Immigration
SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference:
2022-03-25
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is the term 'involved' under Section 2D1.1(b)(5) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Unconstitutional under the Vagueness Doctrine through the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not have been applied to Mr. Mendoza?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The questions presented are: 1. Is the term “involved” under Section 2D1.1(b)(5) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Unconstitutional under the Vagueness Doctrine through the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not have been applied to Mr. Mendoza? 2 United States v. Hugo Valencia Mendoza, Petition for Certiorari No. INTERESTED PARTIES There are no
Docket Entries
2022-03-28
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/25/2022.
2022-03-02
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-02-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 30, 2022)
Attorneys
Hugo Valencia Mendoza
Michael H. Saul — Michael Saul, Attorney, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent