No. 19-6510
Timothy L. Douglas v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255f3 career-offender criminal-law criminal-sentencing-guidelines-4b1.1-4b1.2 due-process guidelines johnson-rule johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines residual-clause retroactivity section-2255 sentencing sentencing-guidelines vagueness void-for-vagueness
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
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 identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2001)?
II. Whether the residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2001), is void for vagueness?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the new rule announced in Johnson v. United States applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2001)
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Petition DENIED. 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
Reply of petitioner Timothy L. Douglas filed. (Distributed)
2019-12-06
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-11-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 6, 2019)
Attorneys
Timothy L. Douglas
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent