Caldwell v. USA

Filing 4

ORDER granting 3 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 12/7/16. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:16-cv-120-RLV
(5:12-cr-15-RLV-1)

ANTHONY CALDWELL,

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

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Respondent’s motion to hold this action in
abeyance. (Doc. 3.) Petitioner is represented by the Federal Defenders of Western North
Carolina.
On August 21, 2012, Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of Possession with Intent to
Distribute Cocaine Base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and (b)(1)(C). The presentence
report found that he had two qualifying prior convictions that triggered the career-offender
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2: two 1993 North Carolina convictions for sell or deliver
cocaine (treated as a single predicate offense for purposes of § 4B1.2), and a 1995 North
Carolina conviction for second-degree murder. (Mot. to Vacate 1-2, Doc. No. 1.)
On June 22, 2016, Petitioner commenced this action by filing a Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He challenges the enhancement of his
sentence under the career-offender guideline in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. Petitioner argues that his prior
North Carolina conviction for second-degree murder no longer qualifies as a career-offender
predicate in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551
1

(2015). Johnson held that “imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the
Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process” but did not
address the residual clause under the career-offender guideline. Id., 135 S. Ct. at 2563.
On December 6, 2016, Respondent filed the instant motion to hold these proceedings in
abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v. United States, No.
15-8544. (Doc. No. 3.) According to Respondent, Beckles presents questions that are relevant
to, or dispositive of, Petitioner’s Motion, including: whether Johnson’s constitutional holding
applies to the residual clause of the definition of “crime of violence” in the career-offender
guideline, and, if so, whether Johnson’s invalidation of the residual clause of the career-offender
guideline applies retroactively on collateral review.
Respondent states that counsel for Petitioner consents 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 hold Petitioner’s § 2255
Motion to Vacate in abeyance (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned action is held in abeyance
pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544. Respondent
shall have 60 days from the date the Supreme Court issues its decision in Beckles to file an
answer, motion, or other response to Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion to Vacate.
Signed: December 7, 2016

2