Speagle v. USA

Filing 5

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Stay. (cbb) This matter is held in abeyance pending Supreme Court's decision in Beckles. Thereafter, Respondent has 60 days from date of Supreme Court decision to file a response to petr's 2255 motion to vacate. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 10/7/2016. (cbb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:16-cv-119-RLV
(5:05-cr-234-RLV-2)

JOHN ANDREW SPEAGLE, SR.,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Respondent’s motion to stay this action and
hold it in abeyance. (Doc. 4.) Petitioner is represented by the Federal Defenders of Western
North Carolina.
On August 18, 2006, Petitioner pled guilty to Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to
Distribute Methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, & 851. The presentence report found
Petitioner had two qualifying prior convictions that triggered the career-offender enhancement
under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2: a 1994 North Carolina conviction for
breaking and entering, and a 1999 North Carolina conviction for manufacturing a schedule VI
controlled substance. The Court applied § 4B1.2 to determine Petitioner’s advisory sentencing
guideline range, and sentenced him to 292 months in prison. (Mot. to Vacate 1-2, Doc. No. 1.)
On June 22, 2016, Petitioner commenced this action by filing a motion to vacate pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner challenges the Court’s application of the careeroffender provision in determining his advisory guideline range. The career-offender
enhancement applies to defendants who, among other things, have “at least two prior felony

1

convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. §
4B1.1(a). Petitioner contends that his conviction for breaking and entering is no longer a “crime
of violence” under the Guidelines in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
On September 1, 2016, Respondent filed the instant motion to stay and hold these
proceedings in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v.
United States, No. 15-8544. (Doc. No. 4.) According to Respondent, Beckles presents three
questions that are relevant to, or dispositive of, Petitioner’s Motion: (1) whether Johnson’s
constitutional holding applies to the residual clause of the definition of “crime of violence” in the
career-offender guideline; (2) if so, whether Johnson’s invalidation of the residual clause of the
career-offender guideline applies retroactively on collateral review; and (3) whether possession
of a sawed-off shotgun, an offense listed as a “crime of violence” in the commentary of the
career-offender guideline, remains a crime of violence after Johnson.
Respondent states that counsel for Petitioner does not object to the motion to stay. For
the reasons stated by Respondent, and without objection from Petitioner, the Court concludes
that the motion should be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to stay (Doc. No. 4) is
GRANTED. This matter is held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles.
Thereafter, Respondent shall have 60 days from the date the Supreme Court decides Beckles to
file a response to Petitioner’s § 2255 motion to vacate.
Signed: October 7, 2016

2