No. 19-1282
Response Waived
Tags: 18-usc-924c appeal-waiver constitutional-vagueness crime-of-violence criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-appeal-waiver due-process force-clause hobbs-act hobbs-act-robbery residual-clause sentencing statutory-interpretation unconstitutional-vagueness vagueness-doctrine violent-crime
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy
DueProcess Privacy
Latest Conference:
2020-06-11
Question Presented (from Petition)
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL PURSUANT TO AN INVALID APPEAL WAIVER, AFTER MAKING ERRONEOUS FINDINGS, OVERLOOKING AND MISAPPREHENDING PRECEDENTIAL LAW, IN DAVIS, THAT THE RESIDUAL CLAUSE OF 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE, AND APPLYING THE FORCE CLAUSE OF 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) IN ORDER TO FIND THAT HOBBS ACT ROBBERY CONSTITUTES A CRIME OF VIOLENCE.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the court of appeals erred in dismissing the appeal pursuant to an invalid appeal waiver
Docket Entries
2020-06-15
Petition DENIED.
2020-05-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.
2020-05-18
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-04-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 11, 2020)
Attorneys
Avery Terry
Linda S. Sheffield — Attorney at Law, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent