No. 18-7949
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 2241-motion career-offender civil-rights criminal-procedure district-court-jurisdiction due-process habeas-corpus habeas-corpus-2241 jurisdiction sentencing standard-of-review standing statutory-interpretation supreme-court-precedent
Latest Conference:
2019-03-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION #1- Whether the District Court erred in dismissing Watsons 2241 motion for lack of jurisdiction?
QUESTION #2- Whether in light of Decamps v United States, or Mathis v United States or United States v Hinkle,Watsons prior conviction does not qualify him as a career offender?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the District Court erred in dismissing Watson's 2241 motion for lack of jurisdiction?
Docket Entries
2019-03-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2019-02-22
Waiver of right of respondent UNITED STATES to respond filed.
2019-01-17
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 15, 2019)
Attorneys
Reginald Watson
Reginald Watson — Petitioner
UNITED STATES
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent