No. 18-9522
Renee Lopez-Galvan v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-924(c)(3)(a) 18-usc-924c3a armed-bank-robbery categorical-approach crime-of-violence elements-clause federal-criminal-law general-intent intent-standard intimidation statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Takings HabeasCorpus
Takings HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
Can reasonable jurists conclude that federal armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) because the offense fails to require any intentional use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can reasonable jurists conclude that federal armed bank robbery by intimidation is not a crime of violence under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) because the offense fails to require any intentional use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force?
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-11
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-05-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 3, 2019)
Attorneys
Renee Lopez-Galvan
Ann Catherine McClintock — Federal Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent