Summary
denying stay "in light of the fact that defendant could possibly be sentenced to time served if his 2255 motion is granted"
Summary of this case from Wilson v. United StatesOpinion
No. CR 08-0730 WHA
10-11-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ARISTIDES CARCAMO, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
Defendant, a federal prisoner, has filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S.___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). As part of a 180-month sentence, the Court imposed a 60-month sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B). The government previously moved to stay proceedings pending resolution by our court of appeals in United States v. Begay, 9th Cir. No. 14-10080, of whether 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson. A prior order denied the motion to stay (Dkt. No. 6300). The government has filed a second motion to stay due to the Supreme Court's recent grant of certiorari in Lynch v. Dimaya, 2016 WL 3232911 (Sep. 29, 2016).
The Court is of the view that briefing should proceed on schedule without any stay in light of the fact that defendant could possibly be sentenced to time served if his 2255 motion is granted. Therefore, the application for stay is DENIED in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 11, 2016.
/s/_________
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE