Barnette v. USA

Filing 125

ORDER that the Courts previous abeyance Order 124 is modified to provide that Respondent shall have 60 days from the date the Simms, No. 15-4640, decision becomes final after en banc review to file an answer, motion, or other response to Petitioners Supplemental Motion to Vacate 19 .Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 11/9/2018. (ams)

Download PDF
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:12-cv-00327-MOC (3:97-cr-00023-MOC-1) AQUILIA MARCIVICCI BARNETTE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________________) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon it’s own motion. On December 8, 2016, the Court entered an Order holding this civil action in abeyance pending decisions by the United States Supreme Court in Lynch v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498, decided sub nom Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018), and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Simms, No. 15-4640. (Doc. No. 124). The Order directed Respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response to Petitioner’s Supplemental Motion to Vacate (Doc. No. 119) within 60 days of entrance of the later of the two decisions. The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dimaya on April 17, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the Fourth Circuit granted Simms’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and oral arguments were held on September 26, 2018. United States v. Simms, No. 15-4640 (4th Cir.), ECF Nos. 52, 83. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Court’s previous abeyance Order (Doc. No. 124) is modified to provide that Respondent shall have 60 days from the date the Simms, No. 154640, decision becomes final after en banc review to file an answer, motion, or other response to Petitioner’s Supplemental Motion to Vacate (Doc. No. 119). 1 SO ORDERED. Signed: November 9, 2018 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?