No. 22-6866
Antonio Rosello v. United States
Tags: circuit-split constitutional-vagueness criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus procedural-default residual-clause statutory-interpretation vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2023-03-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (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)(3)(B)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (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)(3)(B). i
Docket Entries
2023-03-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/17/2023.
2023-02-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-02-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 27, 2023)
2023-01-10
Application (22A613) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until February 18, 2023.
2023-01-05
Application (22A613) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 19, 2023 to March 20, 2023, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Attorneys
Antonio Rosello
Anshu Suresh Budhrani — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent