Little v. USA
Filing
12
ORDER granting 11 Motion to Hold Petitioners Motion to Vacate in Abeyance. This case is held in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Courts decision in United States v. Davis, No. 18-431. The Government shall have 60 daysfollowing the United States Supreme Courts issuance of its decision in Davis to file an answer, motion, or other response to Petitioners Supplemental § 2255 Motion to Vacate. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 3/25/2019. (ams)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-314-MOC
(3:95-cr-105-MOC-1)
RYAN ONEIL LITTLE,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Stay Proceedings on
Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (Doc. No. 11).
Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, challenges his conviction and sentence on the
grounds that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague. (Doc. No. 5). The Court stayed these
proceedings on December 5, 2016, pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles
v. United States, No. 15-844, and after Beckles was decided, the Court issued a stay on May 4,
2017, pending the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisions in United States v. Ali, No. 15-4433
and United States v. Simms, No. 15-4640. (Doc. No. 10). On January 24, 2019, the Fourth Circuit
issued its opinion in Simms and held that § 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague. 914 F.3d 229 (4th
Cir. 2019).
The Government now asks that the Court continue to stay these proceedings because the
question of § 924(c)’s constitutionality is before the United States Supreme Court on certiorari
review in United States v. Davis, No. 18-431, which is scheduled for oral argument on April 17,
2019. Petitioner’s counsel does not oppose the requested stay. (Doc. No. 11 at 2).
The stay will be granted because the issues to be decided in Davis may be dispositive of
1
Petitioner’s claim for relief. In light of these factors, and in the absence of opposition from
Petitioner, the Court finds it is in the interest of judicial economy to grant the Government’s
Motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.
The Government’s Motion to Hold Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate in Abeyance,
(Doc. No. 11), is GRANTED.
2.
This case is held in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision
in United States v. Davis, No. 18-431. The Government shall have 60 days
following the United States Supreme Court’s issuance of its decision in Davis to
file an answer, motion, or other response to Petitioner’s Supplemental § 2255
Motion to Vacate.
Signed: March 25, 2019
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?