Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Eleventh Circuit orders en banc hearing on whether “the risk of force clause in 18 U.S.C. sec. 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Sessions v. Dimaya?”

The original 11th Circuit ruling by Judge Hull (joined by W. Pryor and Tjoflat) is here (U.S. v. Ovalles).

The letter listing the issues before the en banc court is here:
1. Is the risk of force clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague in the light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 2014 (2018)?
2. Should this Court overrule United States v. McGuire, 706 F.3d 1333, 1336-37 (11th Cir. 2013), insofar as it requires applying the categorical approach to determine whether an offense constitutes a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)?


Anonymous said...

Government should just conceed.

Anonymous said...

Why? The court is stacked to rule in the govt's favor.

Anonymous said...

I suspect you are the anonymous person who always posts stupid comments like this one. Does it make you feel better to whine all over the comments section?

Anonymous said...

Because when they get too far afield, they get slappy slappy by the Supremes.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure it's whining. Count the votes. Tell us the defense gets to a win.

Anonymous said...

Let's do the math based on prior rulings:

For the defense: Wilson, Martin, Jordan, Rosenbaum, Jill Pryor

For the government: Ed Carnes, Tjoflat, Marcus, Wm. Pryor, Hull

A tie.

Which way will Newsom and Branch go?