No. 19-8041
Stanley Edward Jamison, Jr. v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2255 habeas-corpus johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines residual-clause retroactivity section-2255 sentencing-guidelines supreme-court-right timely-motion
Latest Conference:
2020-04-17
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether Mr. Jamison's § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), claiming that Johnson invalidates the pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines' residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) because it invoked the "right" that the Supreme Court "newly recognized"?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Mr. Jamison's § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), claiming that Johnson invalidates the pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines' residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) because it invoked the 'right' that the Supreme Court 'newly recognized'?
Docket Entries
2020-04-20
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-03-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 20, 2020)
Attorneys
Stanley Edward, Jr. Jamison
Ann Catherine McClintock — Federal Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent