Little v. United States

W.D. North Carolina

Little v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina·Decided March 19, 2020·No. 3:16-cv-00314·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:16-cv-314-MOC (3:95-cr-1-5-MOC-1)

RYAN ONEIL LITTLE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Place Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in Abeyance, (Doc. No. 19). Petitioner was convicted in the underlying criminal case of offenses including possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) based on the offense of murder in aid of racketeering. He filed his pro se § 2255 Motion to Vacate in June 2016, arguing that Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), applies to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Petitioner was subsequently appointed counsel. (Doc. No. 4). This matter was stayed for several years pending the issuance of Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, (Doc. No. 8), then United States v. Ali, No. 15-4433 and United States v. Simms, No. 15-4640, (Doc. No. 10), and United States v. Davis, 18-431, (Doc. No. 12). Most recently, the case was stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s consideration of Walker v. United States, No. 19-373 which presented the issue of whether an offense that can be committed with mens rea of recklessness can qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. (Doc. No. 17). The Government presently seeks further stay pursuant to Borden v. United States, 19-5410 1 now that the Supreme Court has dismissed Walker due to Mr. Walker’s passing. Borden presents substantially the same question as Walker and counsel for Petitioner does not object. The Government’s Motion to Place Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in Abeyance, (Doc. No. 19), is GRANTED. The Government shall have 45 days after the United States Supreme Court issues its decision in Borden within which to file its response. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 18, 2020

Biever SS Max O. Cogburn i ) United States District Judge ttget

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:16-cv-314-MOC (3:95-cr-1-5-MOC-1)

RYAN ONEIL LITTLE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Place Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in Abeyance, (Doc. No. 19). Petitioner was convicted in the underlying criminal case of offenses including possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) based on the offense of murder in aid of racketeering. He filed his pro se § 2255 Motion to Vacate in June 2016, arguing that Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), applies to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Petitioner was subsequently appointed counsel. (Doc. No. 4). This matter was stayed for several years pending the issuance of Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, (Doc. No. 8), then United States v. Ali, No. 15-4433 and United States v. Simms, No. 15-4640, (Doc. No. 10), and United States v. Davis, 18-431, (Doc. No. 12). Most recently, the case was stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s consideration of Walker v. United States, No. 19-373 which presented the issue of whether an offense that can be committed with mens rea of recklessness can qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. (Doc. No. 17). The Government presently seeks further stay pursuant to Borden v. United States, 19-5410 1 now that the Supreme Court has dismissed Walker due to Mr. Walker’s passing. Borden presents substantially the same question as Walker and counsel for Petitioner does not object. The Government’s Motion to Place Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in Abeyance, (Doc. No. 19), is GRANTED. The Government shall have 45 days after the United States Supreme Court issues its decision in Borden within which to file its response. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 18, 2020

Biever SS Max O. Cogburn i ) United States District Judge ttget

Little v. United States, (W.D.N.C. 2020).

Pincite

Little v. United States (Little v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related