No. 18-6915
Carlton Robinson v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2255 armed-career-criminal-act career-offender career-offender-guideline collateral-review constitutional-vagueness criminal-law-procedure johnson-precedent residual-clause retroactivity section-2255-motion sentencing supreme-court-retroactivity vagueness
Latest Conference:
2019-01-04
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson, claiming that Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender guideline, asserts a "right . . . initially recognized" in Johnson within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).
2. Whether the residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender guideline is unconstitutionally vague.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson, claiming that Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender guideline, asserts a 'right . . . initially recognized' in Johnson within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3)
Docket Entries
2019-01-07
Petition DENIED Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
2018-12-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-12-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-11-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 7, 2019)
Attorneys
Carlton Robinson
Jeffrey B. Lazarus — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent