No. 18-9653
Tags: 28-usc-2255 armed-career-criminal-act burden-of-proof circuit-split federal-prisoner habeas-corpus residual-clause sentencing sentencing-enhancement statutory-interpretation successive-motion
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
When a federal prisoner demonstrates that the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause was a basis for enhancing his sentence, but fails to show that the sentencing judge actually relied on the residual clause, does he satisfy the requirements for a successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When a federal prisoner demonstrates that the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause was a basis for enhancing his sentence, but fails to show that the sentencing judge actually relied on the residual clause, does he satisfy the requirements for a successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255?
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2019-06-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-06-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 15, 2019)
Attorneys
Todd Ricks
Judy Fulmer Madewell — Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent