Sampson v. USA

Filing 15

ORDER that, within 30 days, counsel for petitioner shall file a Supplement to his 13 Amended Response in Opposition and any Motion to Amend counsel for petitioner deems appropriate, and respondent shall file its Surreply. In light of the § 2255 caseload, the court will entertain any joint motion resetting such deadlines to accommodate counsels' schedules. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. on 8/29/16. (ejb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:15-cv-00283-MOC
ERIC CREIGHTON SAMPSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
Vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on preliminary review of the government’s Amended
Response (#13) and petitioner’s Amended Reply (#14) to the Amended Response. Both sides have
presented excellent arguments, which will require additional briefing and filings.
First, the respondent states at page 11 of its Amended Response to the petition that
petitioner’s
challenge to the adequacy of his assault-on-a-female convictions as “crimes of
violence” under the career-offender guideline is necessarily predicated on the
Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), in
which the Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18
U.S.C. § 924(e), is unconstitutionally vague.
Amended Response at 11. The government goes on to argue that any such claim, if it was raised,
should be dismissed as procedurally defaulted. In reviewing the arguments, the court is not certain
whether petitioner has fully stated his Johnson claim in his petition and whether the respondent’s
position has changed in light of this year’s developments in Johnson. The court would like this
issue to be fully explored by petitioner through the filing of a supplement to his Amended Reply
and for petitioner to move to amend the petition under Rule 15, Fed.R.Civ.P., if petitioner’s counsel
determines that the Johnson claim needs clarification.

1

Second, petitioner makes an interesting argument distinguishing respondent’s reliance on
United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931 (4th Cir. 2015), by arguing that he was sentenced under the
then mandatory guidelines while Foote was sentenced under the now advisory guidelines. In
Foote, the appellate court held that sentencing a defendant “pursuant to advisory Guidelines based
on a career offender status that is later invalidated does not meet this remarkably high bar.” Id. at
936 (emphasis added). As pointed out by petitioner, the Fourth Circuit has not yet had occasion
to address whether the sentencing of a defendant pursuant to mandatory guidelines based on a
career offender status that is later invalidated meets or does not meet this high bar. As this case
may very well be that case, the court would like further briefing that fully develops this issue. To
that end, the court will instruct respondent to file a Surreply to that argument. After reviewing all
the briefing, the court may calendar this matter for oral arguments.
***
While there certainly seems to be no shortcuts in resolving these types of cases, which are
now legion, respective counsel for the parties are encouraged to discuss amicable resolution.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that, within 30 days, counsel for petitioner shall file a
Supplement to his Amended Response and any Motion to Amend counsel for petitioner deems
appropriate, and respondent shall file its Surreply. In light of the § 2255 caseload, the court will
entertain any joint motion resetting such deadlines to accommodate counsels’ schedules.

Signed: August 29, 2016

2