No. 23-6686
Clarence Lee Davis v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-924(c) 28-usc-2255(f)(3) armed-career-criminal attempted-bank-robbery bank-robbery crime-of-violence criminal-violence davis-v-united-states federal-criminal-law sentencing-enhancement statutory-interpretation taylor-v-united-states
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2024-03-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
In a proceeding timely filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(3) does Attempted Armed Bank Robbery qualify as a crime of violence under 924(c)'s residual clause or elements clause construed with this courts precedent in Taylor and Davis in order for 924(c) and the Armed Career Criminal Statute to be applicable?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
In a proceeding timely filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(3), does Attempted Bank Robbery qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)'s residual clause or elements clause construed with this Court's precedent in Taylor and Davis in order for 924(c) and the Armed Career Criminal Statute to be applicable?
Docket Entries
2024-03-04
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2024.
2024-02-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-11-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 8, 2024)
Attorneys
Clarence L. Davis
Clarence Lee Davis — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent