| 23-7649 |
Rodolfo Ortiz v. United States |
Eleventh Circuit |
2024-06-05 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
28-usc-2255 certificate-of-appealability circuit-precedent constitutional-vagueness habeas-corpus harmless-error johnson-precedent johnson-v-united-states procedural-default section-2255 vagueness-challenge |
Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether controlling circuit precedent precludes issuance of a certificate of appealability |
| 23-7268 |
Pikerson Mentor v. United States |
Eleventh Circuit |
2024-04-19 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
certificate-of-appealability circuit-split constitutional-claim criminal-procedure due-process johnson-v-united-states procedural-default statutory-interpretation vagueness vagueness-challenge |
Whether Mr. Mentor established cause to overcome procedural default of his 'ordinary-case' vagueness challenge |
| 23-5913 |
Julio Rolon v. United States |
Eleventh Circuit |
2023-10-30 |
Denied |
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP |
28-usc-2255 certificate-of-appealability circuit-precedent circuit-split constitutional-vagueness habeas-corpus johnson-precedent johnson-v-united-states procedural-default vagueness-challenge |
Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether controlling circuit precedent precludes issuance of a certificate of appealability |
| 23-5348 |
Julian Breal v. United States |
Eleventh Circuit |
2023-08-14 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
davis-ruling due-process fifth-amendment motion-to-vacate procedural-default section-2255 united-states-v-davis vagueness vagueness-challenge |
Whether the Petitioner was denied his due process Fifth Amendment right due to being procedurally defaulted from presenting his vagueness challenge |
| 22-7240 |
Cole Lusby v. United States |
Ninth Circuit |
2023-04-07 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
commerce-clause criminal-law criminal-statute due-process facial-vagueness mens-rea sex-offender-registration vagueness-challenge |
Whether SORNA's registration requirements are unconstitutionally vague |
| 21-7783 |
Reynaldo Aviles v. United States |
Eleventh Circuit |
2022-05-05 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
18-usc-924c3b 28-usc-2255 certificate-of-appealability circuit-split johnson-v-united-states procedural-default section-2255 vagueness-challenge |
Whether a certificate of appealability may be issued where there is a circuit split |
| 20-7082 |
Edward Bishop v. United States |
Seventh Circuit |
2021-02-08 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
6th-amendment 924(c)-prosecution constitutional-violation constructive-amendment deficient-performance drug-trafficking-crime due-process habeas-corpus indictment-defect ineffective-assistance-of-counsel prejudice vagueness-challenge |
Whether Trial Counsel's performance was deficient and whether any errors were prejudicial? |
| 20-5596 |
Kevin Dean Green v. United States |
Eighth Circuit |
2020-09-04 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
beckles-v-united-states constitutional-challenge criminal-statute due-process judicial-review legal-interpretation sentencing-guideline sentencing-guidelines vagueness-challenge vagueness-doctrine void-for-vagueness |
Does Beckles v. United States foreclose a vagueness challenge to a sentencing guideline when the operative term in that guideline is defined by a crim… |
| 18-9258 |
Bernard Roosevelt Shaw v. United States |
Sixth Circuit |
2019-05-14 |
Denied |
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP |
carjacking crime-of-violence criminal-law double-jeopardy due-process fifth-amendment sentencing statutory-interpretation vagueness vagueness-challenge |
Whether the lower court(s) erred in its interpretation as to the 'vagueness challenge' of Section §924(c)(3)(B), and the meaning as to what is conside… |
| 18-6761 |
Tellis T. Williams v. United States |
Sixth Circuit |
2018-11-20 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
advisory-sentencing-guidelines beckles-v-united-states career-offender-enhancement certificate-of-appealability certificate-of-appealability-coa due-process johnson-claim johnson-v-united-states sentencing-guidelines sixth-circuit vagueness-challenge |
Whether the Sixth Circuit's denial of Petitioner's COA was based on the merits of the appeal rather than whether reasonable jurists could debate the d… |