No. 20-7282
Tags: 18-usc-922g criminal-law criminal-procedure due-process firearms-offense guilty-plea rehaif-standard rehaif-v-united-states sentencing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2021-06-03
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether this petition should be held pending the decision in United States v. Gary, No. 20-444, given that both this petition and Gary present the same question: whether a defendant's pleading guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), before this Court elucidated § 922(g)'s elements in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), necessarily prejudiced the defendant.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether this petition should be held pending the decision in United States v. Gary, No. 20-444, given that both this petition and Gary present the same question: whether a defendant's pleading guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), before this Court elucidated § 922(g)'s elements in Rehaif v. United States, 139 8. Ct. 2191 (2019), necessarily prejudiced the defendant
Docket Entries
2021-06-07
Petition DENIED.
2021-05-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/3/2021.
2021-04-30
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2021-03-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 30, 2021.
2021-03-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 31, 2021 to April 30, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-02-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 31, 2021)
Attorneys
Earl Malloy
Matthew B. Larsen — Federal Defenders of New York, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent