No. 18-7470
Carl Lee Williams v. United States
IFP
Tags: 18-usc-2119 18-usc-924(c) 18-usc-924c carjacking categorical-approach crimes-of-violence criminal-law federal-carjacking intimidation physical-force residual-clause sessions-v-dimaya statutory-interpretation stokeling-v-united-states vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Latest Conference:
2019-04-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Is federal carjacking by way of intimidation a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)'s force clause?
2. In light of this Court's recent decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018) (finding that 18 U.S.C. § 16's residual clause could only be applied and interpreted using the "categorical approach" and that the clause was therefore unconstitutionally vague), is 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)'s identically-worded residual clause also unconstitutional?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether federal carjacking by way of intimidation is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8)(A)'s force clause
Docket Entries
2019-04-29
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
2019-04-03
Reply of petitioner Carl Williams filed.
2019-03-21
Memorandum of respondent United States of America filed.
2019-02-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 21, 2019.
2019-02-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 19, 2019 to March 21, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 19, 2019)
Attorneys
Carl Williams
Deric Zacca — Deric Zacca, P.A., Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent