No. 18-7252
Eddie Ray Wiese, Jr. v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255 armed-career-criminal-act federal-prisoner fifth-circuit johnson-claim residual-clause sentencing sentencing-enhancement statutory-interpretation successive-motion
Latest Conference:
2019-03-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
When a federal prisoner demonstrates that the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause was the only lawful substantive basis to enhance his sentence, but fails to show as a historical matter that the sentencing judge relied on the residual clause, does he satisfy the requirements for a successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When a federal prisoner demonstrates that the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause was the only lawful substantive basis to enhance his sentence, but fails to show as a historical matter that the sentencing judge relied on the residual clause, does he satisfy the requirements for a successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2)?
Docket Entries
2019-03-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2019-02-06
Memorandum of respondent United States of America filed.
2018-12-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 6, 2019)
Attorneys
Eddie Ray Wiese, Jr.
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent