No. 23-1290

Michael Binday v. United States

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2024-06-11
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: 598 U.S. 306 (2023) requires retroactive effect constitutional-challenge criminal-law criminal-procedure criminal-statute due-process fraud habeas-corpus retroactive-effect retroactivity section-2255 standing statutory-interpretation supreme-court-review
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (from Petition)

Whether this Court's decision in Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023), was a constitutional determination that placed particular conduct or persons covered by the fraud statutes beyond the State's power to punish and thus must be given retroactive effect.

When a person has challenged a judicial construction of a criminal statute at trial, on direct appeal, and in a 2255 motion as unconstitutional, and lower courts reject his contentions, is he foreclosed by section 2255(h) from raising the same issue in a later in time motion after this Court vindicates his position?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Ciminelli v. United States

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-09-24
Notice of Supplemental Authority of Michael Binday submitted.
2024-07-18
Petitioner’s Letter Request to Defer Consideration of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari of Michael Binday submitted.
2024-07-18
Letter from counsel for petitioner received.
2024-06-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-06-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-06-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 11, 2024)

Attorneys

Michael Binday
David William ShapiroThe Norton Law Firm, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent