DUGARD v. USA

Filing 10

Entry Granting Motion to Withdraw Counsel and Directing Further Proceedings - 9 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance is GRANTED and the appearance of Sara J. Varner, Indiana Federal Community Defenders, shall be withdrawn as counsel for the peti tioner. The pro se petitioner shall have through April 28, 2017, in which to either a) voluntarily dismiss this action, or b) file a brief in support of his motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and thereby show cause why this action s hould not be dismissed as untimely and lacking merit under Beckles. If the petitioner files a brief in support, the United States shall have fourteen (14) days in which to respond. The clerk shall update the docket to add the petitioner's address to the docket, as indicated in the distribution list on this Entry. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/22/2017 (copy mailed to petitioner). (LBT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
BILLY JOE DUGARD,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-cv-0110-TWP-TAB

Entry Granting Motion to Withdraw Counsel and Directing Further Proceedings
Counsel for the petitioner has moved to withdraw her appearance on the petitioner’s
behalf. That motion [dkt. 9] is granted and the appearance of Sara J. Varner, Indiana Federal
Community Defenders, shall be withdrawn as counsel for the petitioner.
On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the
Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) was unconstitutional based on vagueness. Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Johnson was determined to announce a new substantive
rule of constitutional law that applied retroactively to ACCA defendants. Welch v. United States,
136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016).
Throughout this case, it has been presented that the petitioner’s entitlement to relief
depends on the retroactive application of Johnson to the Sentencing Guidelines, rather than the
ACCA. In Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, __ U.S. __, 2017 WL 855781 (U.S. March 6,
2017), the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness
challenges under the Due Process Clause, meaning that the Johnson doctrine does not apply to
guidelines cases.

The pro se petitioner shall have through April 28, 2017, in which to either a) voluntarily
dismiss this action, or b) file a brief in support of his motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 and thereby show cause why this action should not be dismissed as untimely and lacking
merit under Beckles. If the petitioner files a brief in support, the United States shall have
fourteen (14) days in which to respond.
The clerk shall update the docket to add the petitioner’s address to the docket, as
indicated in the distribution list on this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/22/2017
Distribution:
Electronically Registered Counsel
Billy Joe Dugard
#10996-028
Inmate Mail/Parcels
Coleman II USP
P.O. Box 1034
Coleman, FL 33521
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.