Webb v. USA
Filing
5
ORDER granting Respondent's 4 Motion to hold Petitioner's § 2255 Motion to Vacate in abeyance. The above-captioned action is held in abeyance pending the Supreme Courts decision in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 12/27/2016. (kby)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:16-cv-122-RLV
(5:09-cr-21-RLV-1)
KAREEM KABBAR WEBB,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Respondent’s unopposed motion to hold this
action in abeyance. (Doc. 4.) Petitioner is represented by the Federal Defenders of Western
North Carolina.
On September 18, 2009, Petitioner pled guilty to Possession with Intent to Distribute
Cocaine Base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) (“Count 3”), Possession of a
Firearm During and In Relation to a Drug Trafficking Crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(“Count 4”), and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1) (“Count 5”). The presentence report found that he had two qualifying prior
convictions that triggered the career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2: a 1997
North Carolina conviction for common law robbery, and a 2000 North Carolina conviction for
breaking and entering. (Mot. to Vacate 1-2, Doc. No. 1.)
On June 23, 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 convictions for common law robbery and breaking and entering no longer qualify
1
as career-offender predicates in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (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 19, 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. 4.) 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.
According to Respondent, counsel for Petitioner does not oppose the Motion to hold this
action in abeyance. (Mot. to Stay 2, Doc. No. 4.) 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. 4) 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.
2
SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 27, 2016
3
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?