Oslund v. United States, No. 17-3359 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
After the Supreme Court struck down the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause as unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557, 2563 (2015), petitioner moved for permission to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate the life sentence imposed on count 3.
The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err on remand by applying the concurrent sentence doctrine. The court held that, in light of the life sentence imposed on count 2 and the sentencing court's specific statements that petitioner remain in prison for life, there was no error in the district court's conclusion that the resulting sentence for the murder conviction would remain the same even assuming petitioner had set forth a valid Johnson challenge. Furthermore, the district court was not required to order a full resentencing; petitioner was not prejudiced; and petitioner's clemency argument lacked merit.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Benton and Arnold, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Section 2255. For the court's opinion in Oslund's direct appeal, see U.S. v. Oslund, 453 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2006). For his appeal from the district court's order on his Section 2255, see Ostlund v. U.S., 751 F. App'x 961 (8th Cir. 2019). On remand, the district court did not err in applying the concurrent sentence doctrine because even if relief on his felon in possession conviction were granted under Johnson, the life sentence on his murder conviction would not change; the district court was not required to order a full resentencing. Judge Arnold, dissenting.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 8, 2019.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.