No. 23-7449
Jacob VanDyke v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: administrative-law Auer-v-Robbins Chevron chevron-deference child-pornography commentary deference guideline-commentary judicial-review sentencing-guidelines
Latest Conference:
2024-06-06
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the 1 to 75 ratio for videos found in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 is entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984), Federal Express Corporation v. Holowechi, 552 U.S. 389, 128 S. Ct. 1147, 170 L. Ed. 2d 10 (2008), and Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 204 L. Ed. 2d 841 (2019)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the 1 to 75 ratio for videos found in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 is entitled to deference under Chevron, Federal-Express-Corporation-v-Holowechi, Kisor-v-Wilkie
Docket Entries
2024-06-10
Petition DENIED.
2024-05-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024.
2024-05-16
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-05-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 10, 2024)
Attorneys
Jacob VanDyke
M. Caroline McCrae — Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent