DILL v. USA

Filing 55

ORDER - GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. Mr. Dill's Motion for Relief from Judgment, dkt. 45 , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted to the extent that a hearing will be scheduled, and Mr. Dill shall be resentenc ed on Count 3. The Motion is denied concerning Mr. Dill's request for relief from his sentence based on De la Torre. The clerk shall docket this Order in Mr. Dill's underlying criminal case, United States v. Dill, 1:11-cr-26-TWP-KPF-1. Further proceedings, including an Order scheduling the resentencing hearing, will be directed in that case. (See Order). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/24/2021. (AKH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
GEOFFRIE ALLEN LEE DILL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01900-TWP-TAB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Geoffrie Dill's ("Mr. Dill") Motion for Relief
from Judgment under Rule 60(a) and 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. 45).
On May 6, 2016 the Court granted Mr. Dill relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and his sentence
was amended that same date. (Dkt. 43, Dkt. 44). Mr. Dill argues that his sentence on Count 3
should have been amended to 120 months, instead of 180 months. He also argues that, under the
reasoning in United States v. De la Torre, 940 F.3d 938, 951 (7th Cir. 2019), his prior Indiana
convictions for dealing in methamphetamine no longer qualify as predicate offenses for
enhancement of his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). For the reasons explained below, the
Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I.

DISCUSSION

On March 27, 2012, Mr. Dill was convicted on charges of possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine (Count 1), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime (Count 2), and felon in possession of a firearm (Count 3). Case No.: 1-11-cr-00026-TWPKPF. (CR Dkt. 136). Mr. Dill was sentenced to 360 months on Count 1 (concurrent), 60 months
on Count 2 (consecutive), and 180 months on count 3 (concurrent). Mr. Dill filed a claim under
1

Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015)1. On April 21, 2016 an Agreement of the parties
as to the Johnson Claim Under 28 U.S.C 2255 was filed in which the parties agreed that the district
court should grant relief to Mr. Dill to the extent that an Amended Judgment be entered in the
criminal matter reflecting:
(i). 240 months on count 1;
(ii). Count 2 is unaffected.
(iii). 120 months on Count 3 to be followed by a 3 year term of supervised release.
(Dkt. 40 at 2). Thereafter, on May 5, 2016, the parties submitted a Joint Proposed Judgement which
stipulated : " The Sentence of 180 months on Count 3 is unaffected except that the parties request
a finding that the Petitioner is no longer an Armed Career Criminal under Johnson v. United States,
135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015)". (Dkt. 42). The Court entered a judgment accordingly. (Dkt. 45). In the
instant Motion, Mr. Dill argues correctly that his sentence on Count 3 should have been amended
to 120 months, instead of 180 months. (Dkt. 45).
Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a Court to "correct a clerical
mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment,
order, or other part of the record." The parties agree that such a clerical error occurred in Mr. Dill's
case when the Parties' Joint Proposed Judgment inadvertently provided for a 180-month term of
imprisonment on Count 3, rather than the 120-month term the parties had previously agreed to.
(See Dkt. 53, p. 3-4). Mr. Dill requests a resentencing hearing to correct the error. That request is
granted.
Mr. Dill also argues that he is entitled to relief from his sentence under the reasoning in
United States v. De la Torre, 940 F.3d 938, 951 (7th Cir. 2019), because his prior Indiana

1

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act
unconstitutional. Johnson, 135 S.Ct. 2551. Subsequently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Johnson
announces a new substantive rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has categorically made retroactive.
Price v. United States, 795 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2015).

2

convictions for dealing in methamphetamine no longer qualify as predicate offenses for
enhancement of his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). However, this argument presents a new
claim for relief under § 2255, and therefore must be treated as a new § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez
v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005) (treating a habeas petitioner's filing that seeks vindication of
a claim as a "habeas corpus application"); Ellzey v. United States, 324 F.3d 521, 524 (7th Cir.
2003) ("[A]ny paper asking for the relief provided by § 2255 ¶ 1 is a motion under § 2255, without
regard to its caption or other details.") (citing cases). Thus, Mr. Dill's request for relief from his
sentence based on De la Torre, is denied. This ruling, however, does not preclude Mr. Dill from
presenting any appropriate challenge at his resentencing hearing.
II.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Dill's Motion for Relief from Judgment filed pursuant to Rule 60(a) and 60(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dkt. [45], is GRANTED in part and DENIED is part. It is
granted to the extent that a hearing will be scheduled, and Mr. Dill shall be resentenced on Count
3. The Motion is denied concerning Mr. Dill's request for relief from his sentence based on De la
Torre. The clerk shall docket this Order in Mr. Dill's underlying criminal case, United States v.
Dill, 1:11-cr-26-TWP-KPF-1. Further proceedings, including an Order scheduling the
resentencing hearing, will be directed in that case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/24/2021

Distribution:
Michelle Patricia Brady
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
[e-mail]

3

Terry Wayne Tolliver
BRATTAIN MINNIX GARCIA
[e-mail]
James Robert Wood
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
[e-mail]

4