James R. Young v. United States

fi) - Whe-lher IS U.S.C- *> 93lH(3l provides for Criminal penaHies-k) -felons toho poSSCSS -firearms In inkrs-tak Commerce. absestV- pnDoF4haV- Ihey Hneui of dheir-felonslakis, Or oF 4he -firearm's mo/emenf in icrftnsfate. Commerce.. (a> Whether denial of fokoadivel habeas Corpus ftehaif review is in comisVenf nidh-lhe. dbcdrinal un<krp\f\riino£ liKe -Ihose held in fcailev pursuanV4o S'teWCOCO Compared ^sqaaCS)0VT,pn4feEl«yenHit\rcuil;]. Cl)- 'WhtW-Hit Supreme.Courts opinion in ftehaif AeVrmlned dhaVJkk£a new rule, of sfaWorv law was 'refroacVtYely' applicate under Teactug.v. lanels Conclusion establishing -Hit rdroadiYrly of neu) substanbve. rules. (M)~ Vhe-fher ftihaif Is 'ftekoadiVe fo cases already closedinlhdower Cour-Vsfrom further habeas review) priorforfs decision- C're+roachve) forCollaWal Oonsiiiubonalor (5)~ Whdberjkbaifs "slaks" (or priors] demenh creakd a Vefroacfive! Sl^MrnentfmeS- ^ fighf io 2jury frial -fcr closed cases;Dr iJould Aljnendare^rTorres VWni4td(Slaltsf 533 CM), being rehurd, resolve.4heionsiskrtf questioning about tk,U5L Creaks' 6P prions b fcfore a trial jury concerningtkinstanf '’Conviction11 and nof a defendantsseeing.