No. 19-7604
Richard Allen Lumpkin v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255 career-offender criminal-sentencing johnson-rule johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines residual-clause sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation void-for-vagueness
Latest Conference:
2020-03-20
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
Docket Entries
2020-03-23
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).
2020-02-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-02-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-02-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 9, 2020)
Attorneys
Richard Lumpkin
Michael Clark Holley — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent