Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

07-037 - United States of America v. Lewis


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
07-037 - United States of America v. Lewis
December 23, 2010
PDF | More
Memorandum of Opinion and Order as to Milon Lamar Lewis: Defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 38) is DENIED. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 12/23/10. (LC,S) Civil Case 5:10-cv-02485-PAG closed. Modified on 7/7/2014 to correct link (H,SP).
October 24, 2016
PDF | More
Order as to Milon Lamar Lewis: In accordance with the Order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, petitioners second or successive § 2255 motion is hereby held in abeyance pending the outcome of Beckles v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2510 (2016). Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 10/24/16. (LC,S)
March 21, 2017
PDF | More
Memorandum of Opinion and Order as to Milon Lamar Lewis. Pending before the Court is petitioner's Second or Successive Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under § 2255 (Doc. 57, Attachment 1). In his motion, petitioner relies on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015), to argue that he was unconstitutionally sentenced as a career offender under the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B2(a)(2). In Johnson, the United States Supreme Court struck down the analogous residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act's definition of a "violent felony" as void for vagueness. More recently, however, the Supreme Court held in Beckles v. United States, U.S., S. Ct., 2017 WL 855781 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017), that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause. Thus, Johnson's vagueness holding does not apply to the Sentencing Guideline provision under which petitioner was sentenced. Petitioner's motion is, therefore, DENIED. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 3/21/17. (LC,S)