Stringer v. USA
ORDER GRANTING 12 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Ethan Skaggs/Office of the Federal Public Defender; DENYING 1 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 petition, and DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. Further, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of the United States of America. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 3/9/2018. (ceh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JIMMIE L. STRINGER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
HERNDON, District Judge:
On May 10, 2016 petitioner Jimmie Stringer (“Stringer”) filed a Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc 1.). In
his § 2255 motion, Stringer challenges his designation and sentence as a career
The Court, after reviewing the pleadings, and pursuant to Administrative
Order 176, referred the case to the Federal Public Defender given Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015) and the fact that Stringer challenges his
career offender status. Thereafter, the Federal Public Defender moved to stay this
case pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Beckles v. United
States, 616 Fed.Appx 415 (11th Cir. 2015), cert. granted., --- U.S. ---, 136 S.Ct.
2510, --- L.E.2d --- (2016) (doc. 4), which the Court granted (doc. 5). On March
6, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Beckles v. United States, 137
S.Ct. 886 (2017) (holding broadly that advisory sentencing guidelines are not
subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause, and thus, the
reasoning of Johnson does not extend to § 4B1.2’s residual clause).
In light of Beckles and Stringer’s Plea Agreement with the Government
containing a waiver of challenges to the constitutionality of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines, the Federal Public Defender moved to withdraw as counsel
The FPD asserts that in exchange for the government not filing an
enhancement under Section 851, Stringer agreed to a plea agreement that
contained a waiver of appeal and collateral review rights along with a waiver of
challenges to the constitutionality of sentencing guidelines, and that no
information exists to prove one of the limited exceptions to a waiver of
appeal/collateral review rights. The Court, entered a show cause order directing
petitioner to show cause – no later than February 22, 2018 – why the undersigned
should not grant the Assistant FPD’s motion to withdraw and deny Stringers §
2255 petition (doc. 13). Stringer has failed to respond.1 Accordingly, the Court
agrees with the Assistant FPD and per Beckles that there is no basis to vacate or
correct Stringer’s sentence.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, this
Court denies a certificate of appealability in this case. A certificate of appealability
should issue only when the prisoner shows both “that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
The Court reviewed and learned that Stringer was released from prison on February 5, 2018
and therefore did not receive a copy of the show cause order. However, the Court has not been
provided an updated address from petitioner Stringer to forward any mailings.
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
474, 484 (2000). This Court concludes that jurists of reason would not find it
debatable whether this Court correctly dismissed petitioner’s motion.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES and DISMISSES with prejudice Stringer’s
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (doc 1). And GRANTS the FPD’s motion to withdraw
(doc. 12). Further, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.
The DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of the United
States of American and against Jimmie Stringer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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?