Docket for 14-5229
| No. 14-5229 | |
| Title: |
| Robert Anderson, Petitioner |
| v. |
| United States |
|
| Docketed: | July 15, 2014 |
| Lower Ct: | United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit |
| Case Nos.: | (12-2306) |
| Decision Date: | March 19, 2014 |
| Rehearing Denied: | April 16, 2014 |
| ~~~Date~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Jul 12 2014 |
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 14, 2014) |
| Aug 7 2014 |
Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 15, 2014. |
| Sep 5 2014 |
Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 15, 2014. |
| Oct 8 2014 |
Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 14, 2014. |
| Nov 14 2014 |
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. |
| Dec 4 2014 |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015. |
| Jun 25 2015 |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 29, 2015. |
| Jun 30 2015 |
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___ (2015). Justice Alito concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case. Following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ____ (2015). In holding these petitions and now in vacating and remanding the decisions below in these cases, the Court has not differentiated between cases in which the petitioners would be entitled to relief if the Court held (as it now has) that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U. S. C. Sec. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is void for vagueness and cases in which relief would not be warranted for a procedural reason. On remand, the Court of Appeals should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. |
| Aug 3 2015 |
JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
|