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
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 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 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2826523
Register to support our free research
Feedback
Feedback to SSRN
If you need immediate assistance, call 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States, 8:30AM to 6:00PM U.S. Eastern, Monday - Friday.