No. 18-5731
Heather Jo Cox v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-review criminal-justice-reform-act criminal-procedure due-process equitable-tolling johnson-ruling johnson-v-united-states second-successive-filing successive-filing successive-petitions vagueness vagueness-doctrine vagueness-standard
Latest Conference:
2018-09-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ITS DECISON TO DENY RELIEF WHERE THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT ROBBERY/BURGLARY FALL INTO THE CATEGORY, THAT FALLS UNDER THE JOHNSON RULING, AS IT RELATES TO VAGUENESS?
DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ITS DECISION TO DENY THE PETITIONER TO PROCEED WITH A SECOND/SUCCESSIVE FILING AS UNTIMLEY, WHERE JOHNSON VUNtTED STATES DID APPLY, AS WAS WITHIN EQUITABLE TOLLING?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the lower court err in denying relief where this court has recognized robbery/burglary as vague under Johnson?
Docket Entries
2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-08-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-05-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 24, 2018)
Attorneys
Heather Cox
Heather Jo Cox — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent