No. 19-5793
Anton Jevon Alexander v. United States
Tags: 18-usc-924c bank-robbery constitutional-challenge criminal-conviction criminal-law due-process federal-statute residual-clause statutory-interpretation statutory-vagueness supreme-court-precedent underlying-crime vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Immigration
HabeasCorpus Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-10-11
Question Presented (from Petition)
In United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), this Court held that the residual clause contained in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(b) is unconstitutionally vague. In light of Davis, must Alexander's 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction be vacated, as it relied on, as an underlying crime of violence, bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Alexander's 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction must be vacated in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019)
Docket Entries
2019-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-09-09
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-08-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 3, 2019)
Attorneys
Anton Alexander
Kevin Michael Schad — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent