Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02018/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02018-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Tony Buck, 

Movant/Defendant, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent/Plaintiff.

No. CV-16-02018-PHX-SRB (BSB)

 CR-95-00386-SRB 

REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION 

 On July 11, 2016, Movant filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 3.) Movant claims that his convictions under 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence are 

unconstitutional in view of Johnson v. United States, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), 

which held that the “residual clause’ in the definition of a “violent felony” in the Armed 

Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), is unconstitutionally vague. 

Movant argues that his qualifying conviction for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a), 

assault with intent to steal property of the United States, is not a crime of violence and, 

therefore, his § 924(c) conviction should be vacated. 

 The government recently moved to stay this § 2255 proceeding pending the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Dimaya v. Lynch. 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015), cert 

granted, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2016 WL 3232911 (Sept. 29, 2016). (Doc. 7.) In Dimaya, the 

the Supreme Court will decide whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which is 

identical to the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B) that Petitioner challenges, is 

Case 2:16-cv-02018-SRB Document 9 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

unconstitutional for the same reasons as the residual clause at issues in Johnson. Counsel 

for Movant does not oppose the stay. (Doc. 7 at 2.) After consideration of this matter, 

the Court recommends that the Court grant the unopposed motion to stay this proceeding 

pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Dimaya. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court grant the government’s motion to stay 

(Doc. 7) and stay this § 2255 proceeding pending the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Dimaya v. Lynch. 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015), cert granted, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2016 WL 

3232911 (Sept. 29, 2016). 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s 

judgment. The parties have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. The parties have fourteen days within which to 

file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to 

any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a 

party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered 

pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 16th day of November, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-02018-SRB Document 9 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 2