Vague gun crime law
Jimenez-Marquez v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Octavio Jimenez-Marquez asks the Supreme Court to review whether the words “in furtherance of” in a federal firearm law are too vague under the Constitution when used in his case.
- Who it affects
- The denial ends Jimenez-Marquez’s request for Supreme Court review but does not decide whether the law’s wording is unconstitutionally vague.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The dispute concerns wording in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a federal firearm law.
Question presented
Whether the phrase “in furtherance of” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the Petitioner.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.