No. 18-7680
Hector Cirino v. United States
Tags: 18-usc-924c3b armed-bank-robbery categorical-approach circuit-split crime-of-violence criminal-law due-process elements-clause johnson-retroactivity johnson-v-united-states residual-clause retroactivity sentencing statutory-interpretation unconstitutional
Key Terms:
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
DueProcess Takings HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-05-09
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Did Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), retroactively void as unconstitutional the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)?
2. Can federal armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) be a crime of violence under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) when the offense fails to require any intentional use, attempted use, or threat of violent physical force?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), retroactively void as unconstitutional the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)?
Docket Entries
2019-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
2019-04-16
Reply of petitioner Hector Cirino filed.(Distributed)
2019-04-03
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-02-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 3, 2019.
2019-02-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 4, 2019 to April 3, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-01-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 4, 2019)
Attorneys
Hector Cirino
Wendi L. Overmyer — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent