No. 19-6818
Tags: criminal-law criminal-procedure due-process johnson-rule johnson-v-united-states residual-clause retroactivity sentencing sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (from Petition)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2)?
II. Whether the residual clause of the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), 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
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in <i>Brown v. United States</i>, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
2020-01-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-02
Memorandum of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
2019-11-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 2, 2020)
Attorneys
John Ward
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent