United States v. Farley

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRIC'I` COURT FOR THE D1STR1CT OF COLUMBIA

UNI'I`ED S'i`ATES OF AMERICA, v. Crim.inal No. 08~0118-5 (PLF)

EDWARD TYRONE FARLEY,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPlNlON AND ORDER This matter comes before the Coui't on defendant Edwa:'d Tyrone Farley’s iler § motion for retroactive application of the Sentencing Guidelines to his conviction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (“Section 3582 l\/Iot.”) [Dkt.

No. 212] and his p§ § motion pursuant to Rule 60(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(“Rule 60(d) Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 214]. Thc government opposes both motions See United States’ Opp. to Dl

Mr. Farley’s Section 3582 motion {Dl

by drug quantity §_e_e Opp. at 7~8 [Dl

l\/lr. Farley’s Rule 60(d) motion [Dl

Second, l\/Ir. Farley challenges the three~point increase to his offense level for his role as a supervisor or manager in the criminal conduct §§ Rule 60(d) Mot. at 1-2, 5*6 [Dkt. No. 214]. The government suggests that this portion of the motion should be recharacterized as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. §§ Opp. at 1 1- 13 [Dl

Before deciding whether to recharacterize this second claim as a Section 2255 claiin, the Court must first issue warnings in accordance with Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003). Accordingly, Mr. farley is hereby notified that if the Court treats his challenge to the supervisor/manager enhancement in his Rule 60(d) motion [Dl

authorize him to tile a second or successive Section 2255 motion unless the motion contains:

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found l\/lr. Farley guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the U.S. Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable §§ 28 U.S.C. § 225 5(h). The motion will be subject to a one-year period of limitations that requires dismissal unless the motion is filed within one year of the latest of the dates listed in Section 225 5(f). Based on the consequences that may result if the Court recharacterizes this claim as a Section 2255 claim, the Court hereby affords l\/lr. Farley the opportunity either (l) to withdraw his claim challenging the supervisor/manager enhancement, or (2) to amend it so that it contains all of the claims that he believes he may have to challenge his conviction or sentence Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Mr. 1`*`arley may submit a consolidated reply with respect to his Section 3582 motion [Dkt. No. 212] and his Rule 60(d) motion [Dkt. No. 214] on or before .lanuary 31, 2018. ln particular, the consolidated reply may address the government’s arguments raised in its Opposition [Dkt. No. 216], and further may either (1) withdraw the portion of the Rule 60(d) motion [Dl

(2) amend it so that it contains all of the claims that Mr. Farley believes he may have to

challenge his conviction or sentence Ifthe Court does not receive a timely reply from l\/lr. Farley, the Court may, if appropriate, recharacterize the portion of the Rule 60(d) motion {Dl

SO ORDERED.

PAUL L. FRIBDMAN United States District .iudge

DATE; tall &"+l l?