United States v. Raul Vivas-Ceja

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[t]he government overreads” the part of the Court’s analysis in Johnson discussing the enumerated crimes
• holding that, without examples, the ACCA’s standard would have been objectionably imprecise, and that “the enumeration of specific crimes did nothing to clarify” the ACCA’s imprecise standard
• holding that, “Applying Johnson’s reasoning here, we conclude that § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague.”
• concluding that neither the confusing list of enumerated crimes in the ACCA nor the “pervasive disagreement” it created among lower courts were “necessary condition[s]” to the Court’s vagueness determination in Johnson
• holding in a direct appeal that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson
• holding in a direct appeal that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).