No. 18-8393
Tags: categorical-approach constitutional-challenge criminal-law due-process sessions-v-dimaya statutory-interpretation supreme-court-precedent vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Immigration JusticiabilityDoctri
HabeasCorpus Immigration JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-06-13
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), where the text and legislative history demand the categorical approach, is unconstitutionally vague in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague
Docket Entries
2019-06-17
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.
2019-05-13
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-04-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 13, 2019.
2019-04-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 11, 2019 to May 13, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-03-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 11, 2019)
2018-12-14
Application (18A621) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until March 8, 2019.
2018-12-11
Application (18A621) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 7, 2019 to March 8, 2019, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Attorneys
Irma Ovalles
Whitman Matthew Dodge — Federal Defender Program Inc., Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent