James v. United States
Petition for certiorari denied on May 21, 2018
Issue: Whether, under the Supreme Court"s opinions in United States v. Booker, Johnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States, which depended heavily upon the distinction between advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes, the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague.
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 11/09/2017 | Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 14, 2017) |
| 12/06/2017 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 14, 2017 to January 16, 2018, submitted to The Clerk. |
| 12/07/2017 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 16, 2018. |
| 01/16/2018 | Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. |
| 01/30/2018 | Reply of petitioner Broderick James filed. |
| 02/01/2018 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2018. |
| 02/20/2018 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/23/2018. |
| 02/26/2018 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/2/2018. |
| 03/12/2018 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/16/2018. |
| 03/19/2018 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/23/2018. |
| 03/26/2018 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2018. |
| 04/09/2018 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/13/2018. |
| 04/16/2018 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/20/2018. |
| 04/23/2018 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/27/2018. |
| 05/07/2018 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/10/2018. |
| 05/14/2018 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/17/2018. |
| 05/21/2018 | Petition DENIED. |