No. 19-6372
Kelby Germaine Parson v. United States
IFP
Tags: appellate-review certificate-of-appealability circuit-split criminal-law criminal-statute due-process firearm-offense firearms mandatory-minimum statutory-interpretation statutory-vagueness vagueness
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Securities
HabeasCorpus Securities
Latest Conference:
2020-01-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. Whether Petitioner is entitled to relief on his claim that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague and his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was obtained in violation of due process.
II. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred under Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) and Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017), by denying Petitioner a certificate of appealability based on adverse circuit precedent, when the issue was nonetheless being debated among jurists around the country -- and has since been resolved in Petitioner's favor.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague
Docket Entries
2020-01-27
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.
2019-12-26
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-11-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 26, 2019.
2019-11-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 25, 2019 to December 26, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-10-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 25, 2019)
Attorneys
Kelby Germaine Parson
Panayotta Augustin-Birch — Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent