No. 19-5307
James D. Brigman v. United States
Tags: criminal-justice criminal-law criminal-procedure due-process johnson-rule johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines residual-clause retroactivity sentencing sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation vagueness void-for-vagueness
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
I.
Whether, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), the new rule announced in
Johnson applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines,
USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2)?
II. Whether the residual clause of the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), is
void for vagueness?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the new rule announced in Johnson applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines
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.
2019-08-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-07-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 23, 2019)
Attorneys
James Brigman, et al.
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent