Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cr-00108/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cr-00108-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Richard Holmes
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOLMES,

Defendant.

Case No. 10-cr-00108-SI-1 

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 32

This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s motion to stay consideration of 

defendant Stephen Richard Holmes’s application for an order under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, 

set aside, or correct his sentence. Dkt. No. 32. The Government seeks a stay pending the 

Supreme Court’s resolution of Beckles v. United States, for which a petition for a writ of certiorari 

was granted on June 27, 2016. Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 2016 WL 1029080 (June 

27, 2016).

There appears to be disagreement between the parties on the potential post-Johnson

Guidelines range sentence applicable to Holmes. See Dkt. No. 33 at 5 (Holmes Reply Br.). The 

government asserts that a post-Johnson guideline range would be 121-151 months, while 

defendant asserts that it would be 46-57 months. Defendant has been in custody since December, 

2009.

A court has the discretion “to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of 

independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., 593 F.2d 

857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). In determining whether to grant a stay, this Court must consider whether 

“there is even a fair possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to some one else.” Landis v. N. 

Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). If there is, then a stay would be inappropriate unless the 

moving party “make[s] out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” 

Case 3:10-cr-00108-SI Document 34 Filed 08/12/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Id.

In order to make the prejudice determination, the Court must consider Holmes’s postJohnson Guidelines range in the present matter. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

the parties shall meet and confer on this issue and, if they can reach agreement, file a joint 

statement on or before August 26, 2016. If the parties disagree on what the revised calculation 

would be, then they shall file separate statements by the same date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cr-00108-SI Document 34 Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 2