No. 19-6336
Eddie Jennings v. United States
Tags: armed-career-criminal-act collateral-review criminal-law johnson-ruling mandatory-sentencing new-right retroactive-application retroactivity sentencing sentencing-guidelines vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether this Court's rulings in Johnson and Welch , retroactively invalidating the residual clause of the ACCA because it was unconstitutionally vague, apply to an identically worded provision in a different mandatory sentencing scheme, that is, the residual clause of the career-offender provision of the former mandatory Sentencing Guidelines or does this application require recognition of a "new right"?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether this Court's rulings in Johnson and Welch apply to the residual clause of the career-offender provision of the former mandatory Sentencing Guidelines
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2019-12-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-05
Reply of petitioner Eddie Jennings filed. (Distributed)
2019-11-21
Memorandum of respondent United States of America filed.
2019-10-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 21, 2019)
Attorneys
Eddie Jennings
Frederick William Ulrich — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent