Tignor v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 34

ORDER directing that on or before June 13, 2011, the the government shall file a supplemental response addressing the following questions: (1) Whether, in Tignor's case, application of the violent felony enhancement, as defined in 18 U.S.C.  7; 924(e)(2)(B), resulted in a higher statutory minimum and maximum sentence under § 924(e); (2) If application of the violent felony enhancement defined in § 924(e)(2)(B) resulted in a higher statutory minimum and maximum sentence under &# 167; 924(e), whether Tignor presents a cognizable claim for collateral relief in his § 2255 motion entitling him to be resentenced; and (3) Whether Tignor's claim of sentencing error is procedurally defaulted. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 5/20/11. (scn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
BERNARDO LEE TIGNOR,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:09cv291-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
In his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Tignor contends that he was erroneously sentenced
as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), upon his conviction for violating
18 U.S.C. § 922(g), when the district court found that his prior state conviction for felony
DUI (in addition to prior state convictions for second-degree burglary and aggravated
stalking) constituted a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. In
light of the May 19, 2011, decision of the en banc Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
Gilbert v. United States, No. 09-12513, 2011 WL 1885674 (11 th Cir. May 19, 2011) (en
banc), this court deems it appropriate to require the government to file a supplemental
response to the § 2255 motion. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that on or before June 13, 2011, the government shall file a supplemental
response addressing the following questions:
1.

Whether, in Tignor’s case, application of the “violent felony”
enhancement, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), resulted
in a higher statutory minimum and maximum sentence under
§ 924(e)?

2.

If application of the violent felony enhancement defined in
§ 924(e)(2)(B) resulted in a higher statutory minimum and
maximum sentence under § 924(e), whether Tignor presents a
cognizable claim for collateral relief in his § 2255 motion
entitling him to be resentenced?

3.

Whether Tignor’s claim of sentencing error is procedurally
defaulted?

Done this 20th day of May, 2011.

/s/Wallace Capel, Jr.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2