DUGARD v. USA, No. 4:2016cv00110 - Document 10 (S.D. Ind. 2017)
Court Description: Entry Granting Motion to Withdraw Counsel and Directing Further Proceedings - 9 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance is GRANTED and the appearance of Sara J. Varner, Indiana Federal Community Defenders, shall be withdrawn as counsel for the peti tioner. The pro se petitioner shall have through April 28, 2017, in which to either a) voluntarily dismiss this action, or b) file a brief in support of his motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and thereby show cause why this action s hould not be dismissed as untimely and lacking merit under Beckles. If the petitioner files a brief in support, the United States shall have fourteen (14) days in which to respond. The clerk shall update the docket to add the petitioner's address to the docket, as indicated in the distribution list on this Entry. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/22/2017 (copy mailed to petitioner). (LBT)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DUGARD v. USA Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION BILLY JOE DUGARD, Petitioner, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:16-cv-0110-TWP-TAB Entry Granting Motion to Withdraw Counsel and Directing Further Proceedings Counsel for the petitioner has moved to withdraw her appearance on the petitioner’s behalf. That motion [dkt. 9] is granted and the appearance of Sara J. Varner, Indiana Federal Community Defenders, shall be withdrawn as counsel for the petitioner. On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) was unconstitutional based on vagueness. Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Johnson was determined to announce a new substantive rule of constitutional law that applied retroactively to ACCA defendants. Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016). Throughout this case, it has been presented that the petitioner’s entitlement to relief depends on the retroactive application of Johnson to the Sentencing Guidelines, rather than the ACCA. In Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, __ U.S. __, 2017 WL 855781 (U.S. March 6, 2017), the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause, meaning that the Johnson doctrine does not apply to guidelines cases. Dockets.Justia.com The pro se petitioner shall have through April 28, 2017, in which to either a) voluntarily dismiss this action, or b) file a brief in support of his motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and thereby show cause why this action should not be dismissed as untimely and lacking merit under Beckles. If the petitioner files a brief in support, the United States shall have fourteen (14) days in which to respond. The clerk shall update the docket to add the petitioner’s address to the docket, as indicated in the distribution list on this Entry. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 3/22/2017 Distribution: Electronically Registered Counsel Billy Joe Dugard #10996-028 Inmate Mail/Parcels Coleman II USP P.O. Box 1034 Coleman, FL 33521 NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.
]]>
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.
