Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

BOYD v. REVELL

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois


October 11, 2005.

WILLIE BOYD, Petitioner,
v.
SARAH REVELL, Respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MICHAEL REAGAN, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his 1998 sentence as an armed career criminal. In the criminal proceeding, the district judge found that Petitioner had three prior convictions, thus warranting a sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"),18 U.S.C. § 924(e). See United States v. Boyd, Case No. 97-cr-301-SNL (E.D. Mo., filed Aug. 7, 1997). At issue now is whether those prior convictions, and specifically the 1972 conviction for second-degree burglary, may be counted for purposes of an ACCA sentence, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision of Shepard v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (2005). Several issues must be resolved in this case, and Respondent shall address each in her response:

1. Does the holding of Shepard apply retroactively to convictions that were final prior to its decision?
2. If Shepard does apply retroactively, can relief be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241?
3. If relief may be granted under § 2241, is Petitioner entitled to relief in this case?
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent shall, within twenty-three (23) days of receipt of this application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, answer and show cause why the writ should not issue. Service upon the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, Illinois, shall constitute sufficient service. In her answer, Respondent shall address all three issues summarized above.

  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this cause is referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings.

  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this entire matter be referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all the parties consent to such a referral.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20051011

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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