No. 22-5897
Unises Chapotin v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: circuit-split criminal-sentencing due-process johnson-precedent johnson-v-united-states section-2255 sentencing-guidelines united-states-sentencing-guidelines vagueness void-for-vagueness
Latest Conference:
2022-11-18
Question Presented (from Petition)
1) Whether the residual clause in Section 4B1.2 of the previously binding
United States Sentencing Guidelines is void for vagueness pursuant to
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
2) Whether the Eleventh Circuit's rule that published orders respecting
applications for leave to file second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions
are binding precedent violates due process.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the residual clause in Section 4B1.2 of the previously binding United States Sentencing Guidelines is void for vagueness pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)
Docket Entries
2022-11-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-11-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/18/2022.
2022-10-31
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-10-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 23, 2022)
Attorneys
Unises Chapotin
Sara Wilson Kane — Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent