John A. Kamenicky v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Hubbard made a prima facie showing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson could apply to 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)
• holding that “it is for the district court to determine whether the new rule extends to the movant’s case, not for this court in this proceeding”
• holding that Johnson is retroactive to the Sentencing Guidelines as “the government has cited no case to support the proposition that a rule can be substantive in one context but procedural in another”
• holding that Johnson is retroactive to the Sentencing Guidelines as “the government has cited no case to support the proposition that a rule can be substantive in one context but procedural in another”
• holding that petitioner made a prima facie showing based upon Johnson
• assuming that defendant’s ability to challenge use of Kentucky third-degree burglary as a predicate offense supporting a Guidelines enhancement depended on § 4B1.2’s residual clause being invalid

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).