Kelly v. U.S., 3:16CV465-MOC (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180928f69
Visitors: 32
Filed: Sep. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's Letter Motion to Accredit Time to State Sentence. (Doc. No. 10). In his motion, Petitioner seeks a ruling from this Court as to whether any future sentencing relief under Sessions v. Dimaya , 138 S.Ct. 1204 (`), will affect his state sentence. Specifically, Petitioner wants to know whether if "upon hearing of [his] federal claim under Dimaya and vacation of [his] 924(c) convictions, the distr
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's Letter Motion to Accredit Time to State Sentence. (Doc. No. 10). In his motion, Petitioner seeks a ruling from this Court as to whether any future sentencing relief under Sessions v. Dimaya , 138 S.Ct. 1204 (`), will affect his state sentence. Specifically, Petitioner wants to know whether if "upon hearing of [his] federal claim under Dimaya and vacation of [his] 924(c) convictions, the distri..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, JR., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's Letter Motion to Accredit Time to State Sentence. (Doc. No. 10). In his motion, Petitioner seeks a ruling from this Court as to whether any future sentencing relief under Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (`), will affect his state sentence. Specifically, Petitioner wants to know whether if "upon hearing of [his] federal claim under Dimaya and vacation of [his] 924(c) convictions, the district court can instruct the BOP to accredit time spent under an unlawful sentence to [his] state sentence." (Doc. No. 10 at 4).
Petitioner has not yet sought relief under Dimaya, and his current motion to vacate is being held in abeyance pending various Fourth Circuit rulings. Federal courts may not render advisory opinions. Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969). Because any ruling by the Court as to the effect of Dimaya relief on Petitioner's state sentence would amount to an advisory opinion at this point, Petitioner's motion will be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner's Letter Motion to Accredit Time to State Sentence, (Doc. No. 10), is DENIED without prejudice for the reasons stated in this Order.
Source: Leagle
