Khoury v. USA

Filing 24

ORDER denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 6/14/2022. (sth)

Case 3:16-cv-01085-DWD Document 24 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #147

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL J. KHOURY,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-1085-DWD

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:

of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc.
23). For the following reasons, the motion is due to be denied.
On May 12, 2015, Khoury plead guilty to the charge of unlawful possession of a
firearm by a felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). United States v.
Khoury, 15-cr-30013-DRH, (Doc. 19). Due to previous convictions, the district court
concluded that Khoury was subject to a sentencing enhancement under the Armed

imprisonment, 5 years of supervised release, a $300 fine, and a $100 special assessment.
Id. (Doc. 34).
On September 26, 2016, Khoury initiated this action by filing a motion to set aside,
vacate, or correct sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1). In his § 2255 motion,
Khoury argued that (1) in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2253 (2016), he

Case 3:16-cv-01085-DWD Document 24 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #148

no longer has the requisite predicate offenses to qualify as an armed career criminal and
(2) in light of United States v. Edwards, 836 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2016), his base level offense
was miscalculated. On January 26, 2017, the district court granted in part and denied in
oc. 16). The district court fo

Mathis. However, the district court concluded that Khoury had been convicted of several
r ACCA, even post-Mathis.
e district court agreed that under Edwards
base offense level would have been lower than that imposed at the time of sentencing.

and set the matter for resentencing.
On May 11, 2017, the district court re
imprisonment, 5 years of supervised release, a $750 fine, and a $100 special assessment.
United States v. Khoury, 15-cr-30013-DRH, (Doc. 52). Khoury appealed, but the Court of

sentenced as an armed career criminal. Id. (Doc. 64).
Khoury brings the present motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(6). (Doc. 23 at 1). Under Rule 60(b)(6), a party may seek relief from a

time period in which a motion must be brought, requiring only that motions be made
c)(1). Khoury does not address the fact that
he brings this motion more than five years after his original § 2255 motion was granted
2

Case 3:16-cv-01085-DWD Document 24 Filed 06/14/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #149

in part and denied in part and more than four years after his appeal of his subsequent
resentencing was rejected. Instead, he argues that after recent decisions by the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, he is no longer subject to a sentencing enhancement
Khoury makes no other argument for reconsideration.

for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6)
Nash v. Hepp, 740 F.3d 1075, 1078
(7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997)). And it is well-settled
that a previous judgment may have been incorrect is not
Id. (quoting
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536 (2005)); see also Hill v. Rios, 722 F.3d 937, 938 (7th Cir.
e judgment in a civil case just because later

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which is currently pending on appeal. Khoury v. Dunbar,

on to reconsider (Doc. 23) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 14, 2022
______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

3