From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Taylor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Sep 17, 2015
CASE NO.1:15CR0025 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 17, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO.1:15CR0025 CASE NO.1:15CV1773

09-17-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NAKESHA M. TAYLOR, Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO , J:

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (ECF #31). The Government filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion (ECF#39). For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendant's Motion.

FACTS

On January 14, 2015, Defendant was indicted by a grand jury on ten counts of False, Fraudulent, and Fictitious Claims. Defendant pleaded guilty under the terms of a Plea Agreement to all counts on May 6, 2015. On August 20, 2015, the Court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of twelve months and one day, to pay $8,692 in restitution and three years of Supervised Release. Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence on September 1, 2015.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has unambiguously held that a § 2255 motion is not properly before a district court while the movant's case is pending on direct appeal, "we now adopt the rule espoused by multiple Circuits that in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a district court is precluded from considering a § 2255 application for relief during the pendency of the applicant's direct appeal." Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1124 (6th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). See Starnes v. United States, 18 Fed. Appx. 288, 291 (6th Cir. 2001).

Here, the record is clear that Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal on September 1, 2015, from the within matter and presently has a direct appeal before the Sixth Circuit in the matter styled, United States v. Nakesha M. Taylor, Case No. 15-3959. Under the Sixth Circuit's holdings in Capaldi and Starnes, Defendant's recently filed § 2255 Application is not properly before the Court while her direct appeal is pending. Therefore, Defendant's § 2255 Motion is denied as procedurally defective. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 17, 2015
Date

s/Christopher A. Boyko

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Taylor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Sep 17, 2015
CASE NO.1:15CR0025 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 17, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NAKESHA M. TAYLOR, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 17, 2015

Citations

CASE NO.1:15CR0025 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 17, 2015)