No. 19-1133
Melvin Hodges, Jr. v. United States
Response Waived
Experienced Counsel
Tags: 28-usc-2255 armed-career-criminal-act due-process johnson-decision johnson-v-united-states post-conviction-relief sentencing-guidelines vague-laws vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Latest Conference:
2020-04-17
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson can assert a timely, valid claim that the residual clause of the mandatory Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson can assert a timely, valid claim that the residual clause of the mandatory Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague
Docket Entries
2020-04-20
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-03-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 15, 2020)
2020-02-11
Application (19A783) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 15, 2020.
2020-02-04
Application (19A783) to extend further the time from February 14, 2020 to March 15, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.
2020-01-13
Application (19A783) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 14, 2020.
2020-01-03
Application (19A783) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 15, 2020 to February 14, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
Melvin Hodges, Jr.
Matthew S. Hellman — Jenner & Block LLP, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent