Wells v. USA
ORDER granting 9 Motion to Stay pending resolution of US v. Thilo Brown. Thereafter, Petitioner shall have 30 days to reply to the Government's Response in opposition to his 2255 Motion to Vacate. In the event Brown d oes not file a petition for writ of certiorari, counsel for Petitioner shall file written notice of that fact no more than 7 days after Brown's deadline for filing a certiorari petition expires.. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 4/12/2018. (chh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANTOINE DWAYNE WELLS,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioner’s unopposed Motion to hold this 28
U.S.C. § 2255 action in abeyance pending resolution by the United States Supreme Court of
United States v. Thilo Brown. (Doc. No. 9.) This Court previously held Petitioner’s § 2255
action in abeyance pending the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Brown, No. 167056. (Doc. No. 8.)
Brown, like Petitioner, was sentenced as a career-offender when the United States
Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, rather than advisory. He argued in his § 2255 motion
that the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), does not
resolve whether his sentence is invalid under United States v. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
On August 21, 2017, the Fourth Circuit held that because neither Johnson, Beckles, nor any other
Supreme Court case has recognized the specific right to relief sought by Brown, his § 2255
motion was “untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).” United States v. Brown, 868 F.3d 297,
299 (4th Cir. 2017). According to the instant Motion, the Fourth Circuit denied Brown’s petition
for rehearing and rehearing en banc on February 26, 2018.
Petitioner’s post-conviction counsel states that Brown’s counsel will file a petition for
writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. (Doc. No. 9 at ¶ 6.) Petitioner now moves
to hold this action in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of Brown. The
Government does not oppose Petitioner’s abeyance Motion. (Doc. No. 9 at ¶ 8.) For the reasons
stated in the Motion, and without objection from the Government, the Court concludes the
motion to hold this action in abeyance should be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to place this action in
abeyance (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED, and this action is held in abeyance pending the Supreme
Court’s resolution of United States v. Thilo Brown. Thereafter, Petitioner shall have 30 days to
reply to the Government’s Response in opposition to his § 2255 Motion to Vacate.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Brown does not file a petition for writ of
certiorari, counsel for Petitioner shall file written notice of that fact no more than seven (7) days
after Brown’s deadline for filing a certiorari petition expires.
Signed: April 12, 2018
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?