| 23-6899 |
James Earl Robinson v. United States |
Sixth Circuit |
2024-03-05 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
21-usc-851 career-offender categorical-approach drug-offense federal-statute sentencing-enhancement state-conviction state-convictions ussg-4b1.1 |
1. Whether this honorable Court should grant certiorari to review whether the Sixth Circuit's determination that Mr. Robinson's prior state conviction… |
| 22-7037 |
Mario Albert Villegas v. United States |
Ninth Circuit |
2023-03-17 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
21-usc-851 advisory-sentencing-guidelines constitutional-error ineffective-assistance-of-counsel sentencing-enhancement sentencing-guidelines statutory-procedure strickland-standard strickland-v-washington u-s-c-section-851 |
Whether defense counsel's failure to advise a client of increased sentencing exposure under 21 U.S.C. § 851, and failure to correctly calculate the ad… |
| 19-8770 |
Carl St. Preux v. United States |
Eleventh Circuit |
2020-06-22 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
21-usc-851 28-usc-2255 circuit-split drug-conviction federal-habeas-corpus federal-sentencing habeas-corpus mandatory-life-sentence post-conviction-relief prior-state-convictions sentencing-enhancement statute-of-limitations |
As such, the question presented here is whether 21 U.S.C. § 851(e), which clearly applies at and during federal sentencing proceedings, usurps and sup… |
| 19-8783 |
Alfredo Gonzalez v. United States |
First Circuit |
2020-06-22 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
21-usc-851 dimaya-v-sessions due-process felony-drug-offense first-step-act johnson-v-united-states jury-selection plain-error-review sentencing-enhancement sixth-amendment void-for-vagueness |
I. Whether the definition of "felony drug offense" for the pur poses of 21 U.S.C. §851 is void for vaguene ss after Johnson, Dimaya, and Da vis.
II. … |
| 19-8694 |
Joseph D. Rouse v. United States |
Sixth Circuit |
2020-06-12 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
21-usc-851 appeal-waiver appellate-review due-process mandatory-minimum notice-requirement plea-agreement sentencing sentencing-enhancement statutory-interpretation |
Does the express language of 21 U.S.C. § 851 requiring prior written notice of the particular conviction the government seeks to use to enhance a mand… |
| 19-8469 |
Viengxay Chantharath v. United States |
Eighth Circuit |
2020-05-14 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
21-usc-851 career-offender collateral-review criminal-procedure drug-convictions first-step-act mandatory-minimum retroactive-application sentencing-enhancement statutory-interpretation |
Whether the First Step Act (FSA-2018) "altered "the statutes:
21 U.S.C.§ 841(a) (1)(b)(1) (A)-(B) also (C) for the prior drugI.
con
victions that qua… |
| 19-6505 |
Michael Ingram v. United States |
Eighth Circuit |
2019-11-06 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
21-usc-851 21-usc-851-enhancement 28-usc-2255 28-usc-2255-f-4 federal-law federal-procedure federal-sentencing geographic-disparities geographic-disparity habeas-corpus sentencing-commission sentencing-commission-report statute-of-limitations statutory-interpretation time-limit time-limitation |
Where the United States Sentencing Commission publishes a report summarizing the geographic disparities in the application of the 21 U.S.C. §851 enhan… |
| 18-8708 |
Charles Clark v. Joe Coakley, Warden |
Fourth Circuit |
2019-04-04 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
21-usc-851 circuit-split controlled-substance-act drug-offense felony-drug-offense habeas-corpus mathis-v-united-states retroactivity sentencing-enhancement |
Whether the decision handed down in Maths v United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016) is retroactive in a post-conviction petition, as some courts have sta… |
| 18-6249 |
Markos Pappas v. United States |
Second Circuit |
2018-10-09 |
Denied |
Response WaivedIFP |
21-usc-851 28-usc-2253 28-usc-2255 appellate-procedure certificate-of-appealability civil-procedure due-process federal-rules-of-civil-procedure-60(b) habeas-corpus rosales-mireles rule-60b section-2255 standard-of-review statutory-interpretation |
Does the certificate of appealability ("COA") requirement of 228 U.S.C. § 2253(c) that explicitly applies to motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, also appl… |