No. 18-7570
Anthony Eugene Hardeman v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2255 armed-career-criminal-act burden-of-proof circuit-split federal-prisoner habeas-corpus 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 basis to enhance his sentence, but fails to show 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 basis to enhance his sentence, but fails to show 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.
2019-02-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2019-02-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-01-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 25, 2019)
Attorneys
Anthony Hardeman
Laura G. Greenberg — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent