No. 23-5426
Christopher Robertson v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: attempted-robbery constitutional-law criminal-conviction criminal-law federal-criminal-procedure hobbs-act jury-instructions misstatement-of-law residual-clause sentencing statutory-interpretation supreme-court
Latest Conference:
2023-10-06
Question Presented (from Petition)
1) CAN A DEFENDANT BE CONVICTED OF A 4(c) OFFENSE IF DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED HOBBS ACT ROBBERY?
2) CAN A DEFENDANT BE CONVICTED OF A OFFENSE, IF DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY HOBBS ACT ROBBERY?
3) CAN A DEFENDANT BE CONVICTED OF A 2(h) OFFENSE BASED ON A MISSTATEMENT OF FACT AS TO ATTEMPT?
4) CAN THE RESIDUAL CLAUSE STILL BE USED IN JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO DEFINE A CRIME OF VIOLENCE EVEN AFTER IT WAS FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN SESSION 16(b)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a defendant can be convicted of a 924(c) offense if the defendant was convicted of attempted Hobbs Act robbery
Docket Entries
2023-10-10
Petition DENIED.
2023-09-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2023.
2023-09-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-08-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 25, 2023)
Attorneys
Christopher Robertson
Christopher Robertson — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent