Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether the Court should resolve the three-way circuit split regarding whether, and under what circumstances, a movant's procedural default may be excused because his constitutional vagueness challenge was "not reasonably available" prior to Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).
2. Whether a general verdict that was obtained in reliance on the unconstitutionally vague residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), may be sustained based on the reviewing court's finding that the jury also relied on a valid basis to convict.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court should resolve the three-way circuit split regarding whether, and under what circumstances, a movant's procedural default may be excused because his constitutional vagueness challenge was 'not reasonably available' prior to Johnson v. United States
2022-02-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/4/2022.
2022-02-17
Reply of petitioner Carlos Granda filed. (Distributed)
2022-02-02
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2021-12-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 2, 2022.
2021-12-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 3, 2022 to February 2, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 3, 2022.
2021-11-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 3, 2021 to January 3, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 3, 2021)