No. 19-5770
Danny Lee Banks v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process fifth-amendment fourteenth-amendment johnson-precedent residual-clause sentencing sixth-amendment unconstitutional unconstitutional-sentencing
Latest Conference:
2019-10-11
Question Presented (from Petition)
1) DID THE APPEALS COURT AND DISTRICT COURT VIOLATE BANKAS
FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY UPHOLDING
A SENTENCE THAT WAS BASED ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
RESIDUAL CLAUSE. JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015), See Shepard documents Exhibits (A) and (B)
2) HOW DID THE APPEALS COURT AFFIRM BANKS 28 U.S.C. § 2255
MOTION OUTSIDE OF THE STATUTE THAT BANKS WAS CONVICTED
TENN. CODE ANN. 39-2-103 (A)(1982) REPEALED 1989
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the appeals court and district court violate bank's fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendment rights by upholding a sentence that was based on the unconstitutional residual clause
Docket Entries
2019-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-09-16
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-08-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 30, 2019)
Attorneys
Danny Banks
Danny Lee Banks — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent