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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?