No. 18-5187
Verissimo Tavares v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: beckles-v-united-states career-offender congressional-directive crime-of-violence criminal-sentencing-guidelines due-process johnson-precedent johnson-v-united-states procedural-error residual-clause sentencing sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation violent-felony
Latest Conference:
2018-09-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether application of the residual clause of the definition of "crime of violence" in U.S.S.G. §4Bl.2(a)(2), a clause identical to that of the residual clause of the definition of "violent felony" in 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(2)(B)(ii), in enhancing a defendant's guidelines sentencing range constitutes procedural error in light of this Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, _U.S._, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) because the clause is hopelessly indeterminate and violates Congressional directives to the Sentencing Commission?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether application of the residual clause of the definition of crime of violence' in U.S.S.G. §4B1.2(a)(2) constitutes procedural error in light of Johnson v. United States
Docket Entries
2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-07-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-07-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-07-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 9, 2018)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Verissimo Tavares
Judith H. Mizner — Federal Public Defender Office, Petitioner