No. 19-5219
Bobby G. Pullen v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255 circuit-split criminal-procedure-28-usc-2255 criminal-sentencing guidelines-interpretation habeas-corpus johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines residual-clause retroactivity sentencing-guidelines successive-habeas-petitions successive-motion vagueness-doctrine void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. When a court of appeals grants authorization to file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2), does 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(4) permit a district court to revisit this § 2255(h)(2) authorization and to dismiss the successive motion as unauthorized?
II. Whether, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2), the new rule announced in Johnson applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) (2004)?
III. Whether the residual clause of the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) (2004), is void for vagueness?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the residual clause of the mandatory guidelines, USSG §4B1.2(a)(2) (2004), is void for vagueness
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Petition DENIED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
2019-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-09-18
Rescheduled.
2019-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-24
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-07-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 16, 2019)
Attorneys
Bobby G. Pullen
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent