United States v. Matchett (11th Cir.) -- Brief of Law Professors as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant

26 Pages Posted: 18 Oct 2015 Last revised: 1 Jul 2016

Carissa Byrne Hessick

University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill - School of Law

Douglas A. Berman

Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law

Date Written: October 15, 2015

Abstract

Section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is identical to statutory language that the U.S. Supreme Court found to be unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States. The panel in this case held that, although 4B1.2(a)(2) is identical to the language from Johnson, it is not unconstitutionally vague because the vagueness doctrine does not apply to the now-advisory Federal Sentencing Guidelines. This brief explains why the panel decision is inconsistent with Supreme Court decisions on the vagueness doctrine and the Sentencing Guidelines.

Keywords: sentencing, sentencing guidelines, due process clause, vagueness doctrine, void for vagueness, United States v. Booker

Suggested Citation

Hessick, Carissa Byrne and Berman, Douglas A., United States v. Matchett (11th Cir.) -- Brief of Law Professors as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant (October 15, 2015). University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 137. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2674698

Carissa Byrne Hessick (Contact Author)

University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill - School of Law ( email )

Van Hecke-Wettach Hall, 160 Ridge Road
CB #3380
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380
United States

Douglas A. Berman

Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law ( email )

55 West 12th Street
Columbus, OH 43210
United States
614-688-8690 (Phone)

Paper statistics

Downloads
119
Rank
189,045
Abstract Views
576