No. 23-5933
Samuel Lee Lynch v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: aggravated-battery constitutional-challenge criminal-law criminal-sentencing due-process johnson-v-united-states residual-clause statutory-interpretation vagueness violent-felony
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2023-12-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1)'s residual clause is unconstitutional
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3559(¢)(1)’s residual clause is unconstitutional in light | of This Court’s opinions in Dimaya and Johnson? | 2. Whether Florida’s Aggravated Battery statute is categorically a violent | felony under | 18 U.S.C. § 8559? | 2
Docket Entries
2023-12-11
Petition DENIED.
2023-11-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2023.
2023-11-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2023-10-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 1, 2023)
Attorneys
Samuel Lynch
Christopher George DeLaughter — Law Office of Darlene Barror, Petitioner
Christopher George DeLaughter — Law Office of Darlene Barror, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent