No. 18-9217
Kirk Lurton Grummitt, et al. v. United States
Tags: armed-career-criminal-act career-offender-guidelines collateral-review criminal-procedure federal-habeas-corpus johnson-decision johnson-v-united-states residual-clause retroactivity sentencing sentencing-guidelines statute-of-limitations
Key Terms:
ERISA HabeasCorpus
ERISA HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-06-06
Question Presented (from Petition)
(1) Whether the "right" in Johnson, which invalidated the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, triggers this statute of limitations for a petitioner seeking to collaterally challenge a sentence under the identical residual clause in the pre-Booker career offender guidelines?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the 'right' in Johnson, which invalidated the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, triggers this statute of limitations for a petitioner seeking to collaterally challenge a sentence under the identical residual clause in the pre-Booker career offender guidelines?
Docket Entries
2019-06-10
Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
2019-05-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2019.
2019-05-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-05-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 10, 2019)
Attorneys
Kirk Grummitt, et al.
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent