# Brown v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · October 15, 2018 · 139 S. Ct. 14

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9225924

## Case

- **Full name:** Thilo BROWN v. UNITED STATES.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** October 15, 2018
- **Citations:** 139 S. Ct. 14; 202 L. Ed. 2d 302
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9225924

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the mandatory Guidelines cannot be challenged as unconstitutionally vague
- discussing issue in context of § 2255(h) and holding that the Supreme Court had not itself extended Johnson to the career offender guideline, even for defendants sentenced while the Guidelines were mandatory
- noting that there are likely at least 1,187 Johnson challenges to sentences under the pre- Booker career-offender clause

## Opinion text

Regardless of where one stands on the merits of how far Johnson extends, this case presents an important question of federal law that has divided the courts of appeals and in theory could determine the liberty of over 1,000 people. 4 That sounds like the kind of case we ought to hear. See this Court's Rules 10(a), (c). 5 Because the Court nevertheless declines to do so, I respectfully dissent.
See Brief for Eight Federal Public Defender Offices as Amici Curiae in No. 16-7056 (CA4), pp. 1a-5a (estimating 1,187 cases pending nationwide).
Rule 10 sets forth situations that can weigh in favor of certiorari, although they are "neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion." Rule 10(a) points to a situation in which "a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter." Rule 10(c) points to a situation in which "a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court."

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9225924. Public record. Not legal advice.