Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cr-00780/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cr-00780-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Benard
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDRE BENARD,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cr-00780-SI-1 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 39

Defendant Andre Benard has filed a petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Docket No. 30. Defendant seeks to have his sentence vacated and to be 

re-sentenced without the enhancement for a prior crime of violence under 28 U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, in 

light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). On 

July 21, 2016, the government filed a motion to stay defendant’s petition, after the Supreme Court 

granted certiorari in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544. Docket No. 39 (“Mot.”). Defendant 

opposes the motion to stay. Docket No. 40 (“Opp’n.”).

Under the facts of this case, the Court will deny the motion to stay. Defendant currently 

has an anticipated release date of December 14, 2016. Opp’n at 2. The government estimates that 

the Supreme Court will issue its decision in Beckles “by June 2017, if not before.” Mot. at 1. The 

government primarily argues that “[a] stay will promote efficiency.” Id. at 2. They say that, “[i]f 

the Supreme Court rules that Johnson is retroactive to the Guidelines, then this Court may decide 

the other issues raised by the Section 2255 motion without the delay caused by a remand from the 

court of appeals.” Id. However, this will not be so if defendant has already completed his original 

sentence. Granting the motion to stay in this case would effectively result in a denial of 

defendant’s petition on the merits. See also United States v. Garcia, No. 13-cr-0601-JST, Docket 

Case 3:12-cr-00780-SI Document 41 Filed 07/29/16 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

No. 72, Order Denying Mot. to Stay (“Were the Court to wait until the Supreme Court issues its 

ruling in Beckles before ruling on Defendant’s motion, such a delay might moot any relief . . ., 

especially given that Defendant’s anticipated release date is June 28, 2017.”). Where, as here, 

“there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which [one party] prays will work damage to 

someone else[,]” and that party has not “ma[d]e out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being 

required to go forward,” the Court will deny the motion to stay. See Landis v. N. American Co., 

299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936).

For the foregoing reasons, the government’s motion to stay is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cr-00780-SI Document 41 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 2