No. 18-9725

Jose Munoz v. United States

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2019-06-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 5th-amendment constitutional-vagueness crime-of-violence criminal-law criminal-law-procedure double-jeopardy due-process evidentiary-rule hobbs-act sentencing sentencing-enhancement vagueness
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)

Whether the definition of "crime of violence" in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.

Whether a Hobbs Act robbery is categorically a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8)(A).

Whether sentencing a defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and § 924(j) for the same conduct violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and whether § 924(j) incorporates § 924(c)'s requirements of mandatory minimum and consecutive sentencing.

Whether the admission of the government's self-serving cooperation agreements with its own witnesses as evidence at trial against a defendant who is not a party to the agreement violates the rule against hearsay and the Confrontation Clause.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the definition of 'crime of violence' in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-25
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-06-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 19, 2019)

Attorneys

Jose Munoz
Arnold Jay LevineSolo Practitioner, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent