Redd v. USA
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -.....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall notify the United States Probation Office of movant's § 2255 motion to vacate and that it is brought pursuant to Johnson v. United States. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within a reasonable time, and in its usual course of business, the United States Probation Office shall prepare and file in movant's criminal case a new Resentence Report relative to movant's contentions under Johnson, which shall be filed under seal, with access to the Court and the parties who have entered their appearance in this matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the Probation Office's Disclosur e Copy of the Resentence Report, the parties shall file, in movant's criminal case, simultaneous objections to the Resentence Report or statements that they have no objection. Within seven (7) days of such time, the United States Probation Of fice shall file a final copy of the Resentence Report in movant's criminal case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the Final Resentence Report by the Probation Office in the criminal case, the Governm ent shall file its response to movant's motion to vacate in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the Government's response to the motion to vacate shall be filed, in this case, no later than fourteen (14) days from the date the response is filed. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 11/15/2016. (MRC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KENNETH REDD,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:16-CV-1665 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is movant Kenneth Redd’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the motion, movant seeks a reduction in his
sentence pursuant to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the “residual clause” of the Armed Career
Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), was unconstitutionally vague. Because
movant was convicted under the ACCA and as it appears from the motion to vacate that he is
relying on Johnson as the basis for his arguments for resentencing, this Court will request
assistance from the United States Probation Office for the Eastern District of Missouri in
reviewing the instant motion to vacate.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall notify the United States
Probation Office of movant’s § 2255 motion to vacate and that it is brought pursuant to Johnson
v. United States.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within a reasonable time, and in its usual course of
business, the United States Probation Office shall prepare and file in movant’s criminal case a
new Resentence Report relative to movant’s contentions under Johnson, which shall be filed
under seal, with access to the Court and the parties who have entered their appearance in this
matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the
Probation Office’s Disclosure Copy of the Resentence Report, the parties shall file, in movant’s
criminal case, simultaneous objections to the Resentence Report or statements that they have no
objection. Within seven (7) days of such time, the United States Probation Office shall file a
final copy of the Resentence Report in movant’s criminal case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the Final
Resentence Report by the Probation Office in the criminal case, the Government shall file its
response to movant’s motion to vacate in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the Government’s response to the
motion to vacate shall be filed, in this case, no later than fourteen (14) days from the date the
response is filed.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 15th day of November, 2016.
2
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?