Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Cargill

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

April 7, 2017

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
LeEverette Cushawn Cargill, Defendant. Criminal No. 10-295(3) ADM/AJB

          LeeAnn K. Bell, Esq., United States Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.

          LeEverette Cushawn Cargill, pro se.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ANN D. MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Defendant LeEverette Cushawn Cargill's (“Cargill”) Pro Se Motion for Leave to Supplement Newly Decided Case Law (“Motion for Leave to Supplement”) [Docket No. 539] and Pro Se Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of 2255 Motion (“Motion for Voluntary Dismissal”) [Docket No. 540]. In addition to these motions, Cargill has filed a Pro Se Notice of Dismissal [Docket No. 541] stating that he is voluntarily dismissing without prejudice his Pro Se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (“§ 2255 Motion”) [Docket No. 528].

         Plaintiff United States of America (the “Government”) has filed a response to Cargill's § 2255 Motion, arguing that the § 2255 Motion should be denied. See Response [Docket No. 542]. The Response does not address Cargill's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal or his Notice of Dismissal, both which were filed the day before the Government's Response. For the reasons set forth below, Cargill's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is granted and his Motion for Leave to Supplement is denied as moot.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On March 15, 2011, Cargill entered a plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), as charged in the Information. Plea Agreement [Docket No. 287]. In the Plea Agreement, Cargill stipulated to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) calculation, including a designation as a Career Offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) based on his two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence; namely, terroristic threats in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.713 and felony domestic assault. Plea Agreement at 3; Presentence Investigation ¶¶ 68, 76. At the time Cargill was sentenced, the definition of “crime of violence” included a residual clause that applied to any offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of injury to another.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (2012).

         On June 27, 2016, Cargill filed the instant § 2255 Motion, arguing that the residual clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2) is void for vagueness and that his sentence was therefore unconstitutionally enhanced. The Government's response to Cargill's § 2255 Motion was stayed pending resolution by the United States Supreme Court of Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017), which was decided on March 6, 2017. See Order, July 26, 2016 [Docket No. 534] (granting Government's request to stay response). The Supreme Court held that the residual clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2) is not void for vagueness. Beckles, 137 S.Ct. at 894-95.

         On March 2, 2017, four days before Beckles was decided, Cargill filed the Motion for Leave to Supplement. The Government has not responded to that motion.

         On March 7, 2017, the day after Beckles was decided, Cargill prepared and signed the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and the Notice of Dismissal, which were received by mail in the clerk's office on March 13, 2017 and electronically filed the same day. The Motion for Dismissal states that Cargill is requesting dismissal because he no longer seeks the relief sought in the § 2255 Motion.

         On March 14, 2014, the Government filed its Response to Cargill's § 2255 Motion. The Government argues that the § 2255 Motion should be denied because it rests entirely upon the contention that the § 4B1.2(a)(2) residual clause is void for vagueness, and the Supreme Court held in Beckles that § 4B1.2(a)(2) is not void for vagueness. The Response does not address Cargill's requests to dismiss the § 2255 Motion without prejudice.

         III. ANALYSIS

         Cargill's requests for dismissal without prejudice are premised on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to § 2255 proceedings to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. R. Gov'g § 2255 Proceedings, R. 12. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.