No. 22-5235
Louis McIntosh v. United States
IFP
Tags: §924(c) criminal-procedure federal-jurisdiction forfeiture hobbs-act interstate-commerce rule-32.2 sentencing
Key Terms:
Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-11-04
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether petitioner's §924(c) conviction based on an attempted Hobbs Act robbery should be vacated in light of United States v. Taylor?
2. Whether a district court may enter a forfeiture order outside the time limitations set forth in Rule 32.2
3. Is the theft of cash from an individual sufficient to satisfy the "interstate commerce" element of 18 U.S.C. §1951 a necessary predicate for federal jurisdiction of what is otherwise local criminal conduct that should be prosecuted by the individual states?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether petitioner's §924(c) conviction based on an attempted Hobbs Act robbery should be vacated in light of United States v. Taylor
Docket Entries
2022-12-09
Judgment issued.
2022-11-07
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 <i>United States</i> v. <i>Taylor</i>, 596 U. S. ___ (2022).
2022-10-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/4/2022.
2022-09-30
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2022-08-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 30, 2022.
2022-08-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 31, 2022 to September 30, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-07-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 31, 2022)
Attorneys
Louis McIntosh
Steven Y. Yurowitz — Newman & Greenberg, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent