No. 19-7947
Bobby Joe Floyd v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255 career-offender-guideline constitutional-vagueness criminal-procedure-28-usc-2255 habeas-corpus johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines mandatory-sentencing-guidelines residual-clause section-2255 timeliness
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-04-17
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
2020-04-20
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-26
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-03-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 9, 2020)
Attorneys
Bobby Joe Floyd
Brianna Fuller Mircheff — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent