Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Cunningham, 4:13CR458 (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio Number: infdco20190321f13 Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER SARA LIOI , District Judge . Before the Court are two motions filed by defendant Anthony Cunningham ("Cunningham"): motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision denying his motion to correct error (Doc. No. 76), and motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (Doc. No. 77). Both motions are DENIED. On April 3, 2017, the Court issued a memorandum opinion denying the motion of defendant Anthony Cunningham ("Cunningham") that was purportedly
More

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are two motions filed by defendant Anthony Cunningham ("Cunningham"): motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision denying his motion to correct error (Doc. No. 76), and motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc. No. 77). Both motions are DENIED.

On April 3, 2017, the Court issued a memorandum opinion denying the motion of defendant Anthony Cunningham ("Cunningham") that was purportedly brought under Rules 52(b) or 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Doc. No. 73 ["MO"].) In that motion, Cunningham had argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L. Ed. 2d 569 (2015), that served to invalidate the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), should be applied to invalidate his sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines. While the Court noted that his motion could be construed as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255—for which Sixth Circuit permission would be needed—the Court found that, even if properly filed, the motion would be denied. (MO at 535.) In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that the Supreme Court recently resolved the issue in Beckles v. United States, ___ U.S. ____, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L. Ed. 2d 145 (2017), by ruling that the holding in Johnson could not be extended to invalidate sentences under the guidelines.

Cunningham now seeks reconsideration of this Court's ruling, and relies on case law— including United States v. Pawlak, 822 F.3d 902 (6th Cir. 2016)—that was specifically abrogated by Beckles. See Beckles, 137 S. Ct. at 892 n.2. The Court did not misapply binding Supreme Court precedent, and Cunningham's motion suggesting otherwise is without merit.

Accordingly, Cunningham's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Because Cunningham also improperly relies on Johnson to support a modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), that motion is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer