Little v. Baigas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding, in the context of a second or successive § 2255 motion, that Johnson and its progeny do not “support a vagueness-based challenge to the residual clause of section 924(c)”
• denying a federal prisoner’s successive § 2255 application and holding that “neither Johnson nor [Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018
• “[Under Ovalles], neither Johnson nor Dimaya supplies any ‘rule of constitutional law’ . . . that can support a vagueness-based challenge to the residual clause of section 924(c).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).