No. 23-5254
David Serrano-Munoz v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-challenge criminal-law due-process legal-definition sentence-enhancement sentencing sexual-abuse statutory-interpretation vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the sentence enhancement provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) is void for vagueness due to lack of definitions of the term 'sexual abuse'
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Should certiorari be should granted to determine whether the sentence enhancement provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) is void for vagueness for lack of definitions of term “sexual abuse?” 2
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-07-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 31, 2023)
Attorneys
David Serrano-Munoz
Craig Ernest Kauzlarich — Abom & Kutulakis LLC, Petitioner
Craig Ernest Kauzlarich — Abom & Kutulakis LLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent