No. 20-7522
Joshua R. Jones v. United States
Tags: 28-usc-2255 career-offender criminal-sentencing johnson-ruling johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines residual-clause section-2255 sentencing-guidelines void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2021-06-24
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. Whether, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), the new rule announced in Johnson applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2003)?
II. Whether the residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2003), is void for vagueness?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the new rule announced in Johnson v. United States applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2003)
Docket Entries
2021-06-28
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.
2021-06-07
Reply of petitioner Joshua R. Jones filed. (Distributed)
2021-05-26
Brief of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
2021-04-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 26, 2021.
2021-04-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 7, 2021 to May 26, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-04-07
Response Requested. (Due May 7, 2021)
2021-04-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.
2021-03-29
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2021-03-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 22, 2021)
Attorneys
Joshua R. Jones
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent