Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Paul Xavier Espinoza v. United States
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 17-16666
Question presented
By its plain language, Hobbs Act robbery does not require as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use, of violent physical force. The plain language of the Hobbs Act robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1), encompasses future threats to injure intangible property and does not require violent physical force. The question presented is whether the Circuits have interpreted the actus reus of Hobbs Act robbery too narrowly and against its plain language by requiring violent physical force as an element.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Amy B. Cleary
Federal Public Defender, District of Nevada
For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Nov 08 2021Petition DENIED.
- Oct 21 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/5/2021.
- Oct 21 2021Reply of petitioners Paul Espinoza, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Oct 07 2021Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Sep 01 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 7, 2021.
- Aug 31 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 7, 2021 to October 7, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 29 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 7, 2021.
- Jul 28 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 6, 2021 to September 6, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 07 2021Response Requested. (Due August 6, 2021)
- Jun 17 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
- Jun 14 2021Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Jun 08 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 12, 2021)