Tomlin v. USA
Filing
18
ORDER STAYING CASE pending the decision of the Supreme Court in Borden v. United States, No. 19-5410. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a Supplemental Memorandum on Petitioners motion to vacate within 45 days of the Supreme Courts decision. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 4/3/20. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-00321-FDW
(3:92-cr-00238-FDW-1)
KAREEM ABDUL TOMLIN,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s response to the Court’s April 2, 2020
Order to Show Cause [Doc. 16].
Currently, this action is stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court in Walker v.
United States, No. 19-373. [Doc. 15]. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition for
writ of certiorari in Walker because the petitioner in that case died on January 22, 2020. Walker,
140 S. Ct. 953 (2020). As such, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why this matter should
not be unstayed in light of the dismissal of the petition for writ of certiorari in Walker. [Doc. 16].
In response, Petitioner shows that this matter should remain in abeyance pending the Supreme
Court’s decision in Borden v. United States, No. 19-5410, which Petitioner asserts presents the
same issue presented in Walker. The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari in
Borden on March 2, 2020. [Doc. 17]. For good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter remain in abeyance pending the decision
of the Supreme Court in Borden v. United States, No. 19-5410.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a Supplemental Memorandum on
Petitioner’s motion to vacate within 45 days of the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden v United
States, No. 19-5410.
Signed: April 3, 2020
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?