Yoder v. USA
Filing
1
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DISMISSES the Motion to Vacate (2255) (DE 56 in 3:15-cr-65) as to Michael Yoder (1) and DENIES the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability. Additionally, the Court DENIES Mr. Yoder's requests for discovery [DE 57, 60 in 3:15-cr-65]. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 12/2/2016. (cc: Yoder)(rmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHAEL YODER
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:15-CR-65 JD
Case No. 3:16-CV-505 JD
OPINION AND ORDER
After attempting to flee from police on his motorcycle, defendant Michael Yoder was
caught and found in possession of methamphetamine and a firearm, leading to his conviction in
this case on two counts. The first count, which was Count 2 of the indictment, was for possessing
methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The
second count, Count 3 of the indictment, was for possessing a firearm in furtherance of that drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Mr. Yoder pled guilty to both counts
pursuant to a plea agreement, and received a sentence of 137 months of imprisonment. Judgment
was entered on those convictions on March 31, 2016, and Mr. Yoder did not appeal.
Mr. Yoder has now moved to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States
District Courts, “If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of
prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the
motion . . . .” Mr. Yoder’s motion presents a single claim, which is that his conviction under
§ 924(c) is invalid under the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015). Johnson had no effect on that conviction, though, so it plainly appears that Mr.
Yoder is not entitled to relief.
Section 924(c) prohibits the possession of a firearm in furtherance of either a “drug
trafficking crime” or a “crime of violence.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). As Mr. Yoder notes, Johnson
invalidated a portion of the definition of the term “violent felony” under the Armed Career
Criminal Act, which is similar to the definition of the term “crime of violence” under § 924(c).
However, Mr. Yoder’s conviction was for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a “drug
trafficking crime”—possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it—not a “crime
of violence,” and Johnson had no effect on the definition of a drug trafficking crime. Therefore,
Johnson does not apply to Mr. Yoder’s conviction, so the Court DISMISSES the motion. [DE
56]. For those same reasons, the Court finds that the resolution of this motion is not debatable
and that Mr. Yoder’s claim is not sufficient to deserve encouragement to proceed further, so the
Court DENIES the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
Mr. Yoder has also filed a motion to compel his former defense counsel to provide him
with discovery materials [DE 57], and moved for a status update on that motion [DE 60].
Counsel responded by stating that he has provided Mr. Yoder with his complete file, but Mr.
Yoder still argues otherwise. Mr. Yoder has never identified what specific materials he is
seeking, though, or indicated what, if any, connection they have to his motion under § 2255. In
addition, the only claim Mr. Yoder has raised in his § 2255 motion rests on a pure question of
law that would be unaffected by any factual matters that might be reflected in the discovery
materials. Discovery is only available in connection with proceedings under § 2255 when a
defendant establishes “good cause” and “provide[s] reasons for the request.” Rules Governing
Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, Rule 6(a), (b). As just noted, Mr.
Yoder has not done so, and absent any indication of how those materials would affect the motion
under § 2255, the Court DENIES Mr. Yoder’s requests for discovery. [DE 57, 60].
The Court advises Mr. Yoder that pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, when the district judge denies a certificate of appealability, the applicant
2
may request a circuit judge to issue the certificate. The Court further advises Mr. Yoder that
Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure governs the time to appeal an order
entered under the rules governing § 2255 proceedings. See Rule 11(b), Rules Governing Section
2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. Under Rule 4(a), when the United States
is a party in a civil case, any notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after the
judgment or order appealed from is entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); Guyton v. United States, 453
F.3d 425, 427 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that “the time to contest the erroneous denial of [the
defendant’s] first § 2255 motion was within 60 days of the decision”).
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: December 2, 2016
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Court
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?