No. 23-5254
David Serrano-Munoz v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-challenge criminal-law due-process legal-definition sentence-enhancement sentencing sexual-abuse statutory-interpretation vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
Should certiorari be should granted to determine whether the sentence enhancement provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) is void for vagueness for lack of definitions of term "sexual abuse?"
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the sentence enhancement provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) is void for vagueness due to lack of definitions of the term 'sexual abuse'
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-07-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 31, 2023)
Attorneys
David Serrano-Munoz
Craig Ernest Kauzlarich — Abom & Kutulakis LLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent