No. 18-5620
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2244(b) 28-usc-2255(h) attempted-murder criminal-law habeas-corpus mathis-standard mathis-v-united-states second-or-successive-2255-motion second-or-successive-motion section-2255 section-924e sentencing statutory-interpretation violent-crime
Latest Conference:
2018-09-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
I.
Did the Seventh Circuit error in sentencing the Petitioner Mario Zuniga as a career criminal under 18 U.S.C. §924(e), without considering Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016)?
II.
Did the Seventh Circuit error in granting MICHAEL HILL authorization under 28 U.S.C. §§2244(b), 2255(h) to file a second or successive 2255 motion in the district court where HILL's claim was based on a "statutory interpretation" that cannot be brought in a second or successive 2255 motion?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals erred in holding that attempted murder in Illinois is categorically a violent crime under 18 U.S.C. §924(e) without considering Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016)
Docket Entries
2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-08-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-08-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-08-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 17, 2018)
Attorneys
Mario Zuniga
Mario Zuniga — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent