No. 21-5633
Roland J. McLain v. United States
IFP
Tags: career-offender circuit-split controlled-substance criminal-law due-process federal-guidelines federal-sentencing-guidelines sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2022-01-07
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Does the phrase "controlled substance" in U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.2(b) , including as it is incorporated into U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, include substances that are excluded from the CSA?
2. When defining an operative, but undefined, term in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, should courts use analogous federal statutory definitions, should they use State statutory definitions, or should they use a judge -made "natural meaning'' of that term?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the phrase 'controlled substance' in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) includes substances excluded from the Controlled Substances Act
Docket Entries
2022-01-10
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-11-12
Memorandum of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2021-10-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 12, 2021. See Rule 30.1
2021-10-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 12, 2021 to November 11, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-09-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 12, 2021)
Attorneys
Roland J. McLain
Thomas A Brodnik — McNeely Law, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent