From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
United States v. Davis
United States Supreme Court
139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019)
Maurice Davis and Andre Glover (defendants) were indicted in federal district court on multiple charges related to a series of Texas gas station robberies. The jury convicted Davis and Glover on all but a single count. Davis and Glover were additionally charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a provision that imposed heightened penalties if a firearm was involved in the commission of a violent felony. An offense could qualify as a crime of violence under the residual clause § 924(c) if the commission of the offense posed a substantial risk of involving physical force used against a person or his property. A person found to violate § 924(c) received a mandatory sentence of at least five years (or more, depending on whether the person had previously been convicted of violating § 924(c) and the extent to which the weapon was used in the crime) to be served consecutively to the sentence for the underlying offense. The jury found that Davis and Glover had violated § 924(c), and they were sentenced by the district court to longer terms of imprisonment. Davis and Glover appealed, arguing that the residual clause of § 924(c) was unconstitutionally vague. The appeal was denied, and Davis and Glover appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vacated the enhanced sentence and remanded the case for reconsideration because a recent Supreme Court decision had held that a different residual clause, which contained similar language to the residual clause in § 924(c), was unconstitutionally vague. On remand, the court of appeals found that the language of the residual clause of § 924(c) was also unconstitutionally vague and reversed the addition of the consecutive sentence. The government appealed. The government agreed that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague as it was historically understood and requested that the Supreme Court apply an interpretation of § 924(c) that focused on the specific facts of the underlying crime.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Gorsuch, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.