No. 19-5316
Abelee Bronson v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255 criminal-procedure criminal-sentencing criminal-sentencing-guidelines-mandatory habeas-corpus johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines residual-clause retroactivity sentencing-guidelines sessions-v-dimaya 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 analogous residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(1) (1988)?
II. Whether the residual clause of the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(1) (1988), is void for vagueness?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the new rule announced in Johnson applies to the analogous 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.
2019-12-20
Supplemental brief of petitioner Abelee Bronson filed. (Distributed)
2019-10-22
Reply of petitioner Abelee Bronson filed.
2019-10-07
Brief of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
2019-09-06
Response Requested. (Due October 7, 2019)
2019-08-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-31
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-07-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 23, 2019)
Attorneys
Abelee Bronson
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent