No. 19-7755
Scott Michael Patrick v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2255 career-offender criminal-sentencing johnson-ruling johnson-v-united-states mandatory-sentencing-guidelines residual-clause section-2255 sentencing-guidelines void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-03-27
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), the right initially recognized in Johnson applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2?
II. Whether the residual clause in the mandatory guidelines is void for vagueness?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the right recognized in Johnson applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory Guidelines
Docket Entries
2020-03-30
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</i> v. <i>United States</i>, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). Recognizing that the Court has repeatedly declined to grant certiorari on this important issue—whether the right recognized in <i>Johnson</i> v. <i>United States</i>, 576 U. S. 591 (2015), applies to defendants sentenced under the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines—I will cease noting my dissent in future petitions presenting the question. I hope, however, that the Court will at some point reconsider its reluctance to answer it.
2020-03-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2020.
2020-03-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-02-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 27, 2020)
Attorneys
Scott Michael Patrick, et al.
Elizabeth Gillingham Daily — Oregon Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent