State v. James F.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that section 922(g)(3) was not impermissibly vague as applied to a defendant whose alleged conduct fell squarely within statute’s confines
• holding Johnson “did not silently overrule [Supreme Court] precedents prohibiting vagueness challenges by those whose conduct a statute clearly prohibits.”
• noting that the defendant was charged with unlawfully possessing tramadol, “an opioid pain reliever and Schedule IV controlled substance”
• rejecting defendant's facial vagueness challenge of federal statute prohibiting possession of firearms by person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance because defendant's alleged conduct fell squarely within statute's confines
• “Johnson[‘s] . . . rejection of the vague-in-all-its-applications standard does not undermine the rule prohibiting defendants whose conduct a statute clearly proscribes from bringing vagueness challenges.”
• “[W]e conclude that Johnson and Dimaya ‘did not alter the general rule that a defendant whose conduct is clearly prohibited by a statute cannot be the one to make a facial vagueness challenge.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).