Pruitt v. United States of America, The
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 08/31/12. (CVA)
2012 Aug-31 PM 02:36
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ARTHUR SIDNEY PRUITT,
THE UNITED STATES OF
The magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation, recommending
that the movant’s motion to vacate his sentence be granted and that he be resentenced pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act. The report pointed out that the
government agreed that re-sentencing is required in this case.
In response to the report and recommendation, the respondent maintains that
“[a]lthough the Government agrees that Pruitt is entitled to a resentencing in
accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act, the Court must address Pruitt’s other
claims as well.” In support of this contention, the respondent has cited law which
states that the district court is required to resolve all habeas issues, even ones that
appear to be moot. The underlying reasoning supposes that if there is an appeal
and the court is wrong on the issue it decided, the case would have to be remanded
for the trial court to resolve the other issues. In this case, however, there will be
no appeal. The court will re-sentence the defendant, as the defendant asks, and the
government agrees should happen. Any appeal would concern the re-sentencing,
not the sentencing which is the subject of this petition. Thus, deciding the other
issues is unncessary. The law cited by the government is inapplicable to the
circumstances of this case.1
The court has considered the entire file in this action, together with the
report and recommendation and the government’s response to the report and
recommendation, and has reached an independent conclusion that the report and
recommendation is due to be adopted and approved. Accordingly, the court
hereby adopts and approves the findings and recommendation of the magistrate
judge as the findings and conclusions of the court.
The motion to vacate is due to be GRANTED, the sentence is due to be
VACATED, and Pruitt is due to be resentenced pursuant to the Fair Sentencing
Act of 2010.
An appropriate order will be entered.
To the extent that the court is wrong, the issue is MOOT since Pruitt’s other claims are
due to be DENIED for the reasons outlined in the Government’s response to Pruitt’s motion. See
DONE this 31st day of August, 2012.
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?