United States v. Wood

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CLIFFORD WOOD, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Nov 23, 2016

Criminal No. 16-035 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 23, 2016)

Opinion

Criminal No. 16-035

11-23-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CLIFFORD WOOD, Defendant.

Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT (DOC. NO. 68)

Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. Doc. no. 68. In this Motion - the second such Motion filed in this case - Defendant argues that Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), supports his Motion. The Government filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Doc. no. 70. In its Response, the Government argues that the Motion is untimely, as it relates to sentencing, not charging.

In Mathis, the Supreme Court examined the Armed Criminal Career Act ("ACCA"), which imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm who also has three prior state or federal convictions "for a violent felony," or "a serious drug offense," or both. 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e). The Petitioner in Mathis pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. During sentencing, he argued that one of his prior crimes did not meet the definition of "violent felony," and thus, he would not be subject to the 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under the ACCA. The Supreme Court held that because Iowa's burglary law (under which Mathis was previously convicted) was broader than those of generic burglary, Mathis' prior burglary convictions could not give rise to the ACCA's sentence enhancement.

Turning to the instant matter, Defendant has not pled guilty to the pending charge of a felon in possession of a firearm. In fact, the trial on this gun charge is set to begin on November 28, 2016. Defendant does have prior drug convictions which may trigger the application of the ACCA at the time of sentencing. Defendant's Motion, predicated upon Mathis, is not appropriate at this juncture of these criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court declines to consider whether the ACCA or the application of Mathis to the instant case are applicable to this case, because such consideration is improper until the sentencing phase of a criminal case.

Accordingly, as his Motion to Dismiss does not raise any basis for dismissing the Indictment, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 23^rd day of November, 2016,

s/Arthur J. Schwab

Arthur J. Schwab

United States District Judge cc: All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties