Corbett v. USA
Filing
6
ORDER granting 5 Motion to Stay. Respondent shall have 60-days from the date the cases of Ali and Simms aredecided to file a response to Petitioners § 2255 Motion to Vacate.. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 12/19/16. (ssh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-00330-RJC
(3:07-cr-00144-RJC-1)
ANDRE L. CORBETT,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of Respondent’s motion to stay the
disposition of Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion to Vacate. (Doc. No. 5: Motion to Stay).
In his § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Petitioner challenges his convictions under 18 U.S.C. §
924(c), relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015), in which the Court struck down the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act
(ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), after concluding that it violated due process because it was
unconstitutionally vague.
In the motion to stay, Respondent cites the cases of United States v. Ali, No. 15-4433
(4th Cir.) and United States v. Simms, No. 15-4640 (4th Cir.), which are pending before the
Fourth Circuit and consider whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) that defines a
“crime of violence” is still constitutional following the Johnson decision.
Because resolution of the issues involved in Ali and Simms may have a bearing on the
disposition of the issues in Petitioner’s case, the Court will grant Respondent’s motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to stay is GRANTED,
(Doc. No. 5), and Respondent shall have 60-days from the date the cases of Ali and Simms are
1
decided to file a response to Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion to Vacate.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 19, 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?