Petitions to watch | Conference of April 13

Posted Wed, April 11th, 2018 5:11 pm by Aurora Barnes

In its meeting of April 13, 2018, the courtroom will look at petitions involving challenges these as whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear Inc., the Supreme Court should vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s judgment and instruct that courtroom to remand the case to the district courtroom with instructions to dismiss all statements for future aid regarding pregnant unaccompanied minors whether, following Johnson v. United States, in which the Supreme Court invalidated the Armed Vocation Legal Act’s residual clause as unconstitutionally obscure, similar language in the residual clause of the earlier-necessary sentencing tips is similarly unconstitutional and whether—when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit uncovered that the new mitigating evidence discovered on federal habeas critique was “double-edged” and could not outweigh the considerable aggravating evidence, and when it misapplied the common for evaluating prejudice in a Wiggins claim—it denied the petitioner thanks course of action.

17-5684

Problems: (1) Regardless of whether the petitioner’s necessary tips sentence, which was enhanced below the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, is unconstitutional in mild of the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Johnson v. United States, and, if so, whether a conviction for theft of a dwelling below Florida legislation qualifies as a “crime of violence” below U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2’s factors clause and (2) whether posted orders issued by a circuit courtroom of appeals below 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), and in the context of programs to file 2nd or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions, represent binding precedent outdoors of that context.

17-654

Challenge: Whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear Inc., the Supreme Court should vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s judgment and instruct that courtroom to remand the case to the district courtroom with instructions to dismiss all statements for future aid regarding pregnant unaccompanied minors.

17-887

Challenge: Whether the Indiana method that enables demo-counsel Strickland v. Washington claims on immediate enchantment in one of two ways–defendants could assert the statements in their short on immediate enchantment if they pick to make no more report in aid of their statements or, if they would like to produce a report, defendants could suspend their immediate enchantment even though they produce the factual report in the demo court–satisfies the MartinezTrevino doctrine, which enables a federal habeas courtroom to hear a considerable assert of ineffective support of demo counsel if a condition denies a meaningful opportunity to increase the assert on immediate enchantment.

17-6344

Problems: (1) Regardless of whether a certification of appealability should be issued to decide whether a predicate conviction that demands simply “physical force that overcomes fair resistance” satisfies the force clause of the Armed Vocation Criminals Act and (2) whether a certification of appealability should be issued to decide whether a Missouri theft conviction from 1969 is a violent felony mainly because, like the present-day Missouri theft statute, it is a fatally overbroad and indivisible statute.

17-7245

Challenge: Whether the loss of life penalty, in and of by itself, violates the Eighth Amendment in mild of present-day criteria of decency and the geographic arbitrariness of its imposition.

17-6262

Challenge: Whether, below the Supreme Court’s viewpoints in United States v. BookerJohnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States, which depended seriously upon the distinction amongst advisory and necessary sentencing techniques, the residual clause of the necessary sentencing tips is unconstitutionally obscure.

17-6769

Challenge: Whether, below the Supreme Court’s viewpoints in United States v. BookerJohnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States, which depended seriously upon the distinction amongst advisory and necessary sentencing techniques, the residual clause of the necessary sentencing tips is unconstitutionally obscure.

17-6877

Challenge: Whether, following Johnson v. United States, in which the Supreme Court invalidated the Armed Vocation Legal Act’s residual clause as unconstitutionally obscure, similar language in the residual clause of the earlier-necessary sentencing tips is similarly unconstitutional.

17-742

Challenge: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s holding—granting qualified immunity to legislation-enforcement officers who stopped the petitioner from praying silently in her individual household mainly because there was no prior case legislation involving equivalent facts—conflicts with Hope v. Pelzer, which “expressly rejected a prerequisite that preceding cases be ‘fundamentally similar’” or contain “‘materially similar’ specifics.”

16-9604

Challenge: Whether Missouri’s 2nd-degree theft statute is divisible into two offenses with independent factors for the intent of examining whether a conviction below that statute qualifies as a conviction for a “violent felony” as defined in the Armed Vocation Legal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

17-6883

Challenge: Whether—when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit uncovered that the new mitigating evidence discovered on federal habeas critique was “double-edged” and could not outweigh the considerable aggravating evidence, and when it misapplied the common for evaluating prejudice in a Wiggins claim—it denied the petitioner thanks course of action.

Posted in Conditions in the Pipeline

Proposed Citation:
Aurora Barnes,
Petitions to enjoy | Convention of April 13,
SCOTUSblog (Apr. 11, 2018, 5:11 PM),
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/petitions-to-enjoy-meeting-of-april-13/

Shares 0

Post Author: gupta

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *