Bohannon v. United States of America

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING 32 MOTION TO RECONSIDER. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 11/7/16. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY BOHANNON,
Movant,
VS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 13-1255-JDT-egb

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

On October 2, 2016, the Court denied Movant’s request for an immediate ruling on his
§ 2255 motion or, in the alternative, for release on bond. (ECF No. 31.) He has now filed a motion
to reconsider, asserting that the Court applied an incorrect standard for determining whether bond
is appropriate. (ECF No. 32.)
There is no statutory authority for releasing a prisoner on bond pending a ruling in a § 2255
proceeding; however, district courts have the inherent power to grant bail. See Jago v. U.S. Dist.
Ct., 570 F.2d 618, 622 (6th Cir. 1978). The movant “must be able to show not only a substantial
claim of law based on the facts surrounding the petition but also the existence of ‘some circumstance
making [the motion for bail] exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interests of
justice.’” Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3,
5 (1964)); see also Morgan v. United States, No. 93-2267, 1994 WL 182141, at *1 (6th Cir. May
11, 1994) (“Exceptional circumstances must exist to warrant granting bail, along with a substantial
likelihood of success in the § 2255 motion.”).

Movant contends that exceptional circumstances are present in this case because he will be
entitled to immediate release if his § 2255 is granted. However, the Court finds that possibility alone
does not constitute the kind of exceptional circumstance deserving of special treatment that warrants
the granting of bond. Moreover, the Movant has not shown a substantial likelihood of success of
the merits. While the outcome of the Sixth Circuit’s en banc decision in United States v. Stitt, 637
F. App’x 927 (6th Cir. 2016), vacated and reh’g en banc granted, 2016 WL 1658598 (6th Cir. Apr.
27, 2016), could be favorable to Movant, the Court is not persuaded that the Court of Appeals will
interpret Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), as requiring modification of the panel
opinion.
Movant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2