Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-08050/USCOURTS-ca10-16-08050-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randy Michael Richardson
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: RANDY MICHAEL 

RICHARDSON, 

 Movant.

No. 16-8050

(D.C. Nos. 2:05-CV-00137-ABJ & 

2:02-CR-00044-ABJ-1)

(D. Wyo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HOLMES, MORITZ, and EID, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Randy Michael Richardson, proceeding through counsel, filed a motion for 

authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court 

to challenge his convictions and sentences for violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (o). We 

abated the matter. Mr. Richardson subsequently supplemented his motion to argue that 

he was entitled to authorization based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States 

v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), which struck down § 924(c)’s residual clause as 

unconstitutionally vague. He has now filed an “Unopposed Motion to Lift Abatement & 

Authorize Second or Successive Motion.” In the Motion, Mr. Richardson, who is 

represented by the Federal Public Defender, “reports that the government does not 

oppose the lifting of the abatement and does not oppose Mr. Richardson’s second or 

successive request.” Mot. at 1. Based on the government’s concession, we lift the 

abatement and grant the motion for authorization. We authorize Mr. Richardson to file a 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 24, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-8050 Document: 010110294918 Date Filed: 01/24/2020 Page: 1
2

successive § 2255 motion challenging his convictions and sentences for violating 

§ 924(c) and (o).1

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

 1 In granting authorization, we are not making any determination about the merits 

of the second or successive § 2255 motion Mr. Richardson may file, including the 

existence or applicability of any plea-agreement waiver that may have been executed. 

We leave that and other merits considerations for the district court.

Appellate Case: 16-8050 Document: 010110294918 Date Filed: 01/24/2020 Page: 2