Hughes v. United States of America
Filing
10
ORDER AND OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 12/08/2016. For the reasons stated above, Petitioner Hughes' Motion to Reconsider 7 , Motion for Certificate of Appealability 8 and Motion for Stay 9 are all DENIED. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER AND OPINION. (JS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 08 December, 2016 02:25:49 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL L. HUGHES,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16-1334
Crim. Case No. 08-20027
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner Hughes’ Motion to Reconsider the
dismissal of his § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, Motion for Certificate
of Appealability, and Motion for Stay. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration [7] is DENIED, his Motion for Certificate of Appealability [8] is DENIED, and
his Motion for Stay [9] is also DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Hughes filed this § 2255 action seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015), arguing that he should not
have been sentenced as a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because his
conviction for aggravated battery no longer qualifies as a crime of violence. Hughes pled guilty
to knowingly possessing cocaine base (crack) with the intent to deliver and received an enhanced
sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment on April 30, 2010. The Court dismissed the § 2255
motion without prejudice as premature, given that Johnson-like relief has not been extended to
cases attacking the career offender enhancement on collateral review.
1
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
"Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Caisse Nationale de Credit v. CBI Industries,
90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, it is not appropriate to argue matters that could
have been raised in prior motions or rehash previously rejected arguments in a motion to
reconsider. Id., at 1270.
Hughes’ Motion correctly argues that the Seventh Circuit decision in United States v.
Hurlburt, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 4506717 (7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2016), extended the holding in
Johnson to sentences enhanced under the residual clause of the definition of “crime of violence”
for the career offender guideline. However, the Seventh Circuit extended this holding only with
respect to cases on direct review and stopped short of finding that this holding can be extended to
cases challenging career offender status on collateral review, such as a § 2255 motion. This issue
is pending before the Supreme Court in Beckles v. United States, 616 Fed.Appx. 415 (11th Cir.
2015), cert. granted, 136 S.Ct. 2510 (2016). Unless and until the Supreme Court extends the
finding that the residual clause of § 4B1.2 is retroactive to cases on collateral review, Hughes’
challenge is premature, and his Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
To obtain a certificate of appealability, a petitioner must make Aa substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.@ 28 U.S.C ' 2253(c)(2). The petitioner must also show that
Ajurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.@ Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). AWhere a plain procedural bar is present
and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not
2
conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should
be allowed to proceed further.@ Id.
Here, no reasonable jurist could conclude that Hughes’ claims are based on a
misapplication of Hurlburt and are not yet ripe for consideration until the Supreme Court issues
its decision in Beckles. Accordingly, this Court will not issue him a certificate of appealability or
a stay, as the dismissal without prejudice protects his right to refile his § 2255 motion if Beckles
opens the door by extending relief to cases challenging enhancement under the career offender
guideline on collateral attack and starts the 1-year period of limitations for these types of claims.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner Hughes’ Motion to Reconsider [7], Motion for
Certificate of Appealability [8] and Motion for Stay [9] are all DENIED.
ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2016.
s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge
3
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?