No. 20-6221
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2255 armed-career-criminal-act circuit-split constitutional-challenge federal-law johnson-precedent johnson-v-united-states residual-clause section-2255 sentencing-guidelines
Latest Conference:
2020-12-04
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the constitutionality of the residual clause of the mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is timely if filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), which held unconstitutional the identical residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the constitutionality of the residual clause of the mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is timely if filed within one year of Johnson v. United States
Docket Entries
2020-12-07
Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2020-11-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.
2020-11-10
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-11-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 7, 2020)
Attorneys
Miguel Nunez
Edward Scott Zas — Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent