No. 19-6670
Michael Bridge v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255 appellate-procedure brief-formatting career-offender constitutional-rights due-process johnson-v-united-states judicial-discretion mandatory-guidelines procedural-fairness residual-clause sentencing-guidelines timeliness Whether Pennsylvania Superior Court can dismiss an
Latest Conference:
2020-01-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of
Johnson v. United States, claiming that Johnson
invalidates the residual clause of the pre-Booker career
offender guideline, asserts a "right .. . initially
recognized" in Johnson for timeliness purposes under
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(8).
2. Whether, in light of Johnson, the residual clause of the
mandatory guidelines is unconstitutionally vague.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, claiming that Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender guideline, asserts a 'right .. . initially recognized' in Johnson for timeliness purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(8)
Docket Entries
2020-01-27
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).
2020-01-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.
2019-12-30
Reply of petitioner Michael Bridge filed.
2019-12-19
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2019-11-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 19, 2019)
Attorneys
Michael Bridge
Brianna Fuller Mircheff — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent