No. 22-5549
Emmanuel Maxime v. United States
IFP
Tags: 18-usc-924 28-usc-2255 cause-exception circuit-split constitutional-vagueness habeas-corpus johnson-v-united-states procedural-default residual-clause
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2023-01-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), establishes 'cause' to excuse procedurally defaulted 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claims that are predicated on the unconstitutionally vague residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8)(B)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), establishes “cause” to excuse procedurally defaulted 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claims that are predicated on the unconstitutionally vague residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8)(B). i INTERESTED PARTIES Petitioner submits that there are no
Docket Entries
2023-01-09
Petition DENIED.
2022-12-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
2022-12-21
Reply of petitioner Emmanuel Maxime filed. (Distributed)
2022-12-08
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2022-11-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 8, 2022.
2022-11-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 14, 2022 to December 8, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-10-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 14, 2022.
2022-10-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 12, 2022 to November 14, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-09-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 12, 2022)
Attorneys
Emmanuel Maxime
Sara Wilson Kane — Federal Public Defender - S.D. of Florida, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent