Archive | Johnson

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016

More to Follow

Johnson (Bad) News:

Today, the Circuit  decided  Hill adverse to the defendant. It holds that Hobbs Act Robbery is “categorically” a “Crime of Violence” under 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c)(3).  It also holds that Johnson does not apply to § 924(c): i.e., it does not  “effectively render[]  the ‘risk-of-force clause’” of § 924(c) “void for vagueness.” United States v. Elvin Hill, No. 14-3872-cr (Jacobs, Livingston, and Droney).

We are still digesting the Opinion. More will follow.  But defense counsel will still have to raise and litigate these claims until the Supreme Court decides the issue. The Government already has a cert petition pending with the Supreme Court  based on defendant wins in the Ninth Circuit and two other circuits. This Second Circuit case clearly creates a split that the Supreme Court will most likely take on.…

Posted By
Categories: 924(c), crime of violence, Hobbs Act, Johnson

Continue Reading
Friday, July 29th, 2016

Petition to file a Second or Successive 2255 petition is granted by the Circuit –in a Career Offender case based on Johnson and the cert. grant in Beckles — and the district court has discretion to proceed without waiting for the Beckles decision.

Today the Circuit amended its decision in Blow v. United States, No. 16-1530 (Katzmann, chief judge; Wesley and Hall, circuit judges). It added a single line at the end of the opinion to say that the district judge has discretion to proceed on Blow’s  2255 petition and  is not required to hold the petition in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides  Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 2016 WL 1029080 (U.S. June 27, 2016).

The Circuit’s initial opinion was filed about two weeks ago, on July 14, 2016. It granted Blow’s motion to file a Second or Successive 2255 petition. But it  “instructed” the district court to “hold Blow’s §2255 motion in abeyance pending the outcome of Beckles.

In Beckles,  the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015)  — which declared that the “residual clause” of the …

Posted By
Categories: 2255, career offender, Johnson, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Thursday, July 14th, 2016

Your emails are a bit safer from the government’s eyes…so long as they are stored outside of the United States

In a big privacy and technology ruling, the Second Circuit vacated an order holding Microsoft in civil contempt for failing to comply with a warrant demanding user content that was stored in Ireland. The circuit concluded that US courts are not authorized to enforce “Stored Communications Act” warrants requesting electronic communications stored abroad. As Judge Lynch pointed out in his concurrence, if Microsoft stores your electronic communications abroad your privacy is now “absolute as against the government,” but, of course, your “privacy is protected against Microsoft only to the extent defined by the terms of their contract.”

And, in other news today, Johnson litigation continues…

Last year, in Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court held the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was void for vagueness. Last month, the Supreme Court granted cert in United States v. Beckles to decide whether Johnson applies retroactively to …

Posted by
Categories: Johnson

Posted By
Categories: Johnson

Continue Reading