Intent and physical force
Thomas James Sheely, Jr. v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Thomas James Sheely filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review whether a federal sentencing rule for crimes involving physical force covers an offense that requires an intentional act but not purpose or knowledge that the act will cause harm.
- What's at stake
- The Supreme Court has not yet taken up Sheely’s challenge, so the legal question he raises remains unresolved.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
His petition says appeals courts disagree about how to apply the rule.
Sheely’s petition compares his question with Borden v. United States, which addressed reckless aggravated assault under the federal force clause.
Question presented
Whether an offense that requires an intentional act, but neither purpose nor knowledge as to the resulting harm, is an offense that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another” as required by the federal elements clause.
What happens next
The next step is for the Court to decide whether to hear the case. Oral argument is not scheduled, and no decision date is set.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What disagreement does Sheely point to?
- His petition says appeals courts disagree about how the federal elements clause applies to offenses requiring an intentional act but not purpose or knowledge of resulting harm.
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.