Gibbs v. USA

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ORDERS the Government to file a response to Mr. Gibbs' petition (Doc. 1) by June 30, 2017. Petitioner may file a reply brief (no longer than 5 pages) by July 17, 2017. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/5/2017. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RYAN L. GIBBS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-00561-JPG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Ryan L. Gibbs’ Motion (Doc. 1) to Vacate,
Set Aside or Correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the following reasons, Mr. Gibbs’
motion survives this threshold review and the Court orders the government to file its response.
On December 8, 2015, Mr. Gibbs plead guilty to one count of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine. See USA v. Gibbs, 15-cr-40037-JPG, Doc. 30. He was sentenced on March 22,
2016, to imprisonment for 216 months, three years of supervised release, a fine of $200.00 and a
special assessment of $100.00. See USA v. Gibbs, 15-cr-40037-JPG, Doc. 37. He appealed and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court on
January 6, 2017.

See USA v. Gibbs, 16-1747 (7th Cir. 2017).

The petitioner filed this timely pro se § 2255 motion (Doc. 1) on January 17, 2017. In his
petition, Mr. Gibbs presents two claims. The first claim is based upon the Supreme Court
decision in Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016)(holding that the “application of ACCA
involves, and involves only, comparing elements. Courts must ask whether the crime of conviction
is the same as, or narrower than, the relevant generic offense.”) Id. at 2257.

Page 1 of 2

The petitioner is claiming that he is entitled to resentencing without a career offender
enhancement based on Mathis. Specifically, Mr. Gibbs is arguing that his prior Illinois drug
offenses “[n]o Longer Qualify as Career Offender Predicate “Controlled Substance Offenses,”
Because Illinois Defines “Delivery” More Broadly [than] USSG §4B1.2.” The Court would also
request that the government address any effect the Supreme Court decision in Beckles v. United
States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017) may have on Mr. Gibbs’ claim under Mathis since the Mathis court
was addressing the ACCA and not sentencing guidelines.
Mr. Gibbs second claim is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.
Mathis was decided on June 23, 2016, and petitioner argues that his appellate counsel should have
raised Mathis on direct appeal.
Pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United
States District Courts, the Court has performed a preliminary review of the § 2255 motion and has
determined that it is not plain from the motion and the record of the prior proceedings that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS the Government to file a response to Mr. Gibbs’ petition (Doc.
1) by June 30, 2017. The Government shall, as part of its response, attach all relevant portions of the
record. Petitioner may file a reply brief (no longer than 5 pages) by July 17, 2017. If review of the
briefs indicates that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the court will set the hearing by separate
notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 6/5/2017
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2