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  

Carissa Byrne Hessick

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

Leah M. Litman

University of California, Irvine School of Law

Douglas A. Berman

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

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

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

Leah M. Litman

University of California, Irvine School of Law ( email )

401 E. Peltason Dr.
Ste. 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-1000
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
114
Rank
200,337
Abstract Views
845