Beckles v. United States -- Amici Curiae Brief of Scholars of Criminal Law, Federal Courts, and Sentencing in Support of Petitioner
48 Pages
Posted: 22 Aug 2016
University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill - School of Law
University of California, Irvine School of Law
Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law
Date Written: August 18, 2016
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 Supreme Court subsequently held that the ruling in Johnson was retroactive. This brief explains why the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are subject to vagueness challenges and why any ruling that a guideline is unconstitutionally vague should be made retroactive.
Keywords: due process, vagueness, retroactivity, Supreme Court
Suggested Citation:
Suggested Citation
Hessick, Carissa Byrne and Litman, Leah M. and Berman, Douglas A., Beckles v. United States -- Amici Curiae Brief of Scholars of Criminal Law, Federal Courts, and Sentencing in Support of Petitioner (August 18, 2016). UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2826523. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2826523
