No. 22-5042
Phillip Shiel v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: aiding-and-abetting categorical-approach crime-of-violence criminal-law elements-clause hobbs-act hobbs-act-robbery statutory-interpretation united-states-v-taylor
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2022-09-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery is a 'crime of violence' under the elements clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8)(A)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery is a “crime of violence” under the elements clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8)(A), following this Court’s decision in United States v. Taylor, which established that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery fails to align with it. Relatedly, whether the categorical approach for determining whether an offense meets the elemental requirements of § 924(c)(3)(A) should be applied to aiding-and-abetting offenses. @)
Docket Entries
2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-07-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-07-11
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-06-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 5, 2022)
Attorneys
Phillip Shiel
Kathleen Bliss — Kathleen Bliss Law PLLC, Petitioner
Kathleen Bliss — Kathleen Bliss Law PLLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent