DAVIS v. U.S., 3:07-cr-61-FDW-11 (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20141010967
Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion following the filing of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on August 27, 2014, (Doc. No. 4). Before ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Government shall, within ten days, submit to this Court a brief memorandum addressing the issue of whether, in this action, Petitioner's conviction for accessory after the fact to robbery with a dangerous weapon under North Carolina law constitutes a "crime of violence" fo
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion following the filing of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on August 27, 2014, (Doc. No. 4). Before ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Government shall, within ten days, submit to this Court a brief memorandum addressing the issue of whether, in this action, Petitioner's conviction for accessory after the fact to robbery with a dangerous weapon under North Carolina law constitutes a "crime of violence" for..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion following the filing of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on August 27, 2014, (Doc. No. 4). Before ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Government shall, within ten days, submit to this Court a brief memorandum addressing the issue of whether, in this action, Petitioner's conviction for accessory after the fact to robbery with a dangerous weapon under North Carolina law constitutes a "crime of violence" for purposes of being designated as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.1 The Government shall also address whether Petitioner's motion to vacate is time-barred (which it appears to be), and, if so, whether the Government waives the statute of limitations.
FootNotes
1. The Court suggested in a footnote in its order for the Government to respond that the issue was not clear, but the Government did not address it in the motion to dismiss.
Source: Leagle
