No. 19-6689
Frank Fernandez v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255 career-offender career-offender-guideline due-process johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines pre-booker residual-clause section-2255 sentencing timeliness timeliness-purposes
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 Frank Fernandez filed.
2019-12-20
Memorandum of respondent United States of America filed.
2019-11-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 20, 2019)
Attorneys
Frank Fernandez
Brianna Fuller Mircheff — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent