No. 18-5293
George Anthony Autobee v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-924c 28-usc-2255 armed-bank-robbery constitutional-challenge crime-of-violence felony-force-clause johnson-v-united-states residual-clause section-2255 statutory-interpretation timeliness
Latest Conference:
2018-09-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether Mr. Autobee's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the
constitutionality of the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was
timely because it was filed within one year of Johnson u. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015);
2. Whether the offense of armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a),
(d), qualifies as a crime of violence under the felony force clause.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Mr. Autobee's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the constitutionality of the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was timely
Docket Entries
2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-08-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-07-26
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-07-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 20, 2018)
Attorneys
George Anthony Autobee
Grant Russell Smith — Office of the Federal Pubic Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent