Thompson v. United States of America, No. 2:2018cv00608 - Document 12 (M.D. Fla. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner shall file either a supplement to his pending Motion or file a free-standing 2255 motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Respondent shall file a response to the supplement or amended 2255 motion within thirty (30) days thereafter. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 8/18/2019. (SLU)

Download PDF
Thompson v. United States of America Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION GEORGE VANCE THOMPSON, III , Petitioner, v. Case No.: 2:18-cv-608-FtM-38NPM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. / OPINION AND ORDER1 Pending before the Court is Petitioner George Vance Thompson III’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Doc. 1, “Motion”) filed on September 10, 2018. Petitioner requests the Court to vacate his enhanced sentence for Count Three of his plea-based conviction, Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), claiming the “in furtherance” language contained in § 924(c)(1) is unconstitutional. The United States filed a Response in Opposition seeking dismissal of the Motion as untimely (Doc. 7), to which Thompson filed a Reply (Doc. 10). While his Motion was pending, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis, in which it held that § 924(c)(3)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. ___ U.S. 1 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. Dockets.Justia.com ___, ___ 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323, 2336, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2019). The Eleventh Circuit in a published order held that Davis announced “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). In re Hammoud, ___F.3d ___, No. 19-12458, 2019 WL 3296800, slip op. at 4-8 (11th Cir. July 23, 2019). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Petitioner shall file either a supplement to his pending Motion or file a freestanding amended § 2255 motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. 2. Respondent shall file a response to the supplement or amended § 2255 motion within thirty (30) days thereafter. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 18th day of August, 2019. SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record 2

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.