No. 22-5076
Tags: constitutional-vagueness controlled-substance controlled-substances criminal-law criminal-liability due-process health-care health-care-professional professional-liability ruan-v-united-states statutory-interpretation vagueness
Latest Conference:
2022-10-14
Question Presented (from Petition)
Because this Court's recent pronouncement in Ruan v. United States, 20-1410
applies to 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) prosecutions involving health care professionals,
and the jury was instructed on an "objective good faith" basis of liability, should
Petition Womack's conviction be vacated?
21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) makes it a crime to knowingly "use" a "place" "for the purpose
of' distributing a controlled substance. Is this plain language unconstitutionally
vague, as pharmacists and other health care professionals violate this language in
their usual practice without committing an "illegal" act?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should Petition Womack's conviction be vacated?
Docket Entries
2022-11-18
Judgment issued.
2022-10-17
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Xiulu Ruan v. United States, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).
2022-09-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/14/2022.
2022-08-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 12, 2022.
2022-08-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 11, 2022 to September 12, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-07-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 11, 2022)
Attorneys
Holli Womack
Kevin Michael Schad — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent