Gardner v. USA
Filing
11
SHOW CAUSE ORDER re 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Harold Gardner. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 8/21/2017. (kmb2)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HAROLD GARDNER
Petitioner,
v.
No. 3:15-cv-01037-DRH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent.
ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court for case management. On September
21, 2015, petitioner Harold Gardner (“Gardner”) filed a Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). Specifically,
Gardner challenges his status as a career offender based on the holding in
Johnson v. United States, 135 St. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Id.). In Johnson, the United
States Supreme Court found the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal
Act (“ACCA”) to be unconstitutionally vague under the Sixth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause. See Johnson. Gardner argues that because the residual clause
found in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 is substantially identical to that found in the ACCA, it
similarly is unconstitutionally vague (Doc. 1). In accordance with this District’s
Administrative Order No. 176, the Court appointed the Federal Public Defender
(“FPD”) to represent Gardner (Doc. 5).
Due to a circuit split as to whether the sentencing guidelines were subject to
vagueness challenges, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Beckles v. United
States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), in order to resolve the split. In Beckles, the Court
held that Johnson-reasoning does not extend to section 4B1.2’s residual clause,
and the advisory sentencing guidelines are ultimately not subject to vagueness
challenges under the Due Process Clause. See Beckles.
Subsequently, the
government filed a Notice Regarding Supplemental Authority arguing that the
section 2255 motion should be denied in light of Beckles (Doc. 9); and more
specifically asserting that Gardner’s 2255 petition should be dismissed given
there was no cognizable error in his sentence because the petition rests wholly on
the premise that the advisory guidelines may be attacked as unconstitutionally
vague (Id.).
Based on the foregoing, the Court DIRECTS Gardner—on or before
September 22, 2017—to file a response SHOWING CAUSE, i.e. a valid reason,
why his section 2255 petition should not be denied and his case dismissed. The
government may—but is not required to—file any further response by the same
date. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Gardner at
his law known address.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 21st day of August, 2017.
Judge Herndon
2017.08.21 17:10:03 -05'00'
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?