Johnson v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–7120.,13–7120. |
| Citation | 135 S.Ct. 939 (Mem),574 U.S. 1069,190 L.Ed.2d 718 |
| Parties | Samuel James JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This case is restored to the calendar for reargument. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: "Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague." The supplemental brief of petitioner is due on or before Wednesday, February 18, 2015. The supplemental brief of the United States is due on or before Friday, March 20, 2015. The reply brief, if any, is due on or before Friday, April 20, 2015. The time to file amicus curiae briefs is as provided for by Rule 37.3(a). The word limits and cover colors for the briefs should correspond to the provisions of Rule 33.1(g) pertaining to briefs on the merits rather than to the provision pertaining to supplemental briefs. The case will be set for oral argument during the April 2015 argument session.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. United States, 1:08-cr-018
...136.) The basis for Petitioner's motion is his argument that pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015),2 his prior convictions for aggravated assault and robbery in Pennsylvania do not qualify as violent felonies, and therefor......
-
Serrano v. United States, 3:19-cv-00719
...appeal in 2008, which was dismissed by the Sixth Circuit on September 29, 2010. On January 9, 2015, the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States, 574 U.S. 1069 (2015) directed the parties in that case to file supplemental briefs to address whether the residual clause in the ACCA, 18 U.S.C.......
-
Schmidt v. Pollard, Case No. 13-CV-1150
...2198 (2015) (citation omitted)). To be adjudicated on the merits, the state court is not required to give reasons. Johnson v. Williams, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1094 (2015), quoting Harrington, 131 S. Ct. at 784-85; see also Fargo, 2016 WL 5415747 at 10-11. Indeed, "[w]hen a federal clai......
-
United States v. Walker, Criminal Case No. 15-20262
...clause" that is identical to those invalidated by the Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). In passing, Walker also argues that he "may be entitled to some form of general relief" under the newly enacted First Step Ac......