U.S. v. Sullivan, 01-350. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20180521779
Visitors: 20
Filed: May 18, 2018
Latest Update: May 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS KURT D. ENGELHARDT , District Judge . Presently before the Court is a Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (Rec. Doc. 66), as well as a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion in light of Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017), filed by Harold Sullivan (Rec. Doc. 75). The Government opposes the motion (Rec. Doc. 81). Sullivan filed a reply memorandum following the Government'
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS KURT D. ENGELHARDT , District Judge . Presently before the Court is a Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (Rec. Doc. 66), as well as a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion in light of Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017), filed by Harold Sullivan (Rec. Doc. 75). The Government opposes the motion (Rec. Doc. 81). Sullivan filed a reply memorandum following the Government's..
More
ORDER AND REASONS
KURT D. ENGELHARDT, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (Rec. Doc. 66), as well as a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion in light of Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017), filed by Harold Sullivan (Rec. Doc. 75). The Government opposes the motion (Rec. Doc. 81). Sullivan filed a reply memorandum following the Government's response (Rec. Doc. 84).
Having carefully considered the parties' submissions and applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that Sullivan's motion is DENIED for essentially the reasons set forth in the Government's comprehensive and well-reasoned opposition memorandum (Rec. Doc. 81). The Court recognizes that the Supreme Court's holding in Beckles—that the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges—did not determine Johnson's applicability to the mandatory Guidelines. Because this issue has not yet been addressed by the Supreme Court, there is no right "newly recognized by the Supreme Court" as required under § 2255(f)(3).
Source: Leagle
