No. 23-1290

Michael Binday v. United States

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2024-06-11
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: 598 U.S. 306 (2023) requires retroactive effect constitutional-challenge criminal-law criminal-procedure criminal-statute due-process fraud habeas-corpus retroactive-effect retroactivity section-2255 standing statutory-interpretation supreme-court-review
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Ciminelli v. United States

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether this Court’s decision in Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023), was a constitutional determination that placed particular conduct or persons covered by the fraud statutes beyond the State’s power to punish and thus must be given retroactive effect. When a person has challenged a judicial construction of a criminal statute at trial, on direct appeal, and in a 2255 motion as unconstitutional, and lower courts reject his contentions, is he foreclosed by section 2255(h) from raising the same issue in a later in time motion after this Court vindicates his position?

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-09-24
Notice of Supplemental Authority of Michael Binday submitted.
2024-07-18
Petitioner’s Letter Request to Defer Consideration of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari of Michael Binday submitted.
2024-07-18
Letter from counsel for petitioner received.
2024-06-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-06-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-06-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 11, 2024)

Attorneys

Michael Binday
David William ShapiroThe Norton Law Firm, Petitioner
David William ShapiroThe Norton Law Firm, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent