No. 21-7070
Anderson Curtel Duke v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: agency-deference agency-interpretation attempt-crimes circuit-split controlled-substance controlled-substance-offense judicial-deference kisor-v-wilkie sentencing-guidelines stare-decisis stinson-v-united-states
Latest Conference:
2022-03-04
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Should courts defer to Sentencing Guidelines commentary when there is no ambiguity in the underlying text?
2. Has the Commission impermissibly expanded the definition of "controlled substance offense" through the commentary by including "attempt" crimes when those crimes are absent from the Guidelines definition found in § 4B1.2(b)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should courts defer to Sentencing-Guidelines-commentary when there is no ambiguity in the underlying-text?
Docket Entries
2022-03-07
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/4/2022.
2022-02-10
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-02-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 10, 2022)
Attorneys
Anderson Duke
MICHAEL L. DUBOS — Breithaupt, DuBos & Wolleson, LLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent