No. 19-7412
Alford D. Embry, Jr. v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255 career-offender criminal-sentencing habeas-corpus johnson-rule johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines residual-clause sentencing-guidelines vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
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 (2000)?
II. Whether the residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2000), is void for vagueness?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the new rule announced in Johnson applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2000)
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).
2020-02-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-31
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-01-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 24, 2020)
2019-12-17
Application (19A666) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until January 22, 2020.
2019-12-11
Application (19A666) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 23, 2019 to January 22, 2020, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
Attorneys
Alford D. Embry, Jr.
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent