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.

RICHARDSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cr-00624-SI-1 

ORDER GRANTING STAY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 72, 73, 74

Defendant applied to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for authorization to file a second 

or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Dkt. No. 67 at 1-2. This petition was granted. See

Ninth Circuit Case No. 16-71314. In granting the petition, the Ninth Circuit invited this Court to 

stay proceedings pending the resolution of Gardner v. United States, Ninth Circuit Case No. 15-

72559 and Jacob v. United States, Ninth Circuit Case No. 15-73302. The Court accordingly 

stayed the present matter pending the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in these cases. Dkt. No. 69.

On August 1, 2016, the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay in both Gardner and Jacob, and 

transferred those cases back to the district courts in which they originated. Gardner Dkt. No. 42; 

Jacob Dkt. No. 39. This Court then requested briefing from the parties in this case on the question 

of whether the present stay order should remain in place in light of United States Supreme Court’s 

resolution of Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544 (cert. granted June 27, 2016). Dkt. No. 72.

The parties submitted supplemental briefs in response to the Court’s order. Dkt. Nos. 73, 

74. Defendant’s projected release date for his current 120-month sentence is August 28, 2019. 

Defendant’s projected post-Johnson Guidelines range would be 110-137 months. Dkt. No. 73 at 

6. If that guideline assessment proves accurate, the 120-month sentence originally imposed by the 

Court (in accordance with the parties’ Rule 11-c-1-c plea agreement) is within the applicable 

guideline range even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of retroactivity, and the low end of the 

guideline range is still well beyond the time the defendant will have served by June 2017, which is 

Case 3:09-cr-00624-SI Document 75 Filed 08/23/16 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

when the Supreme Court is expected to rule on Beckles. Even if, as defendant conjectures, he 

earns the maximum available good time credit on a recalculated low-end guideline sentence, his 

release date would not be before June 2017, the expected Beckles decision date. In light of this, 

the Court finds that there is little risk that defendant will be in danger of “overserving” his 

sentence prior to the Supreme Court’s resolution of Beckles. It is unlikely that Beckles will fail to 

decide the issue of whether Johnson is retroactive to the Guidelines, as that was the question 

presented in the petition for certiorari, and that was the question on which the Supreme Court 

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

Contra Dkt. No. 73 at 5-6.

The Court acknowledges the liberty interest at stake, and acknowledges the split among

courts in the Northern District of California concerning the prejudice determination in deciding 

whether to grant or deny a stay. However, on the present record, defendant has not shown a fair 

possibility that he will be prejudiced by a stay of the proceedings pending a decision of the 

Supreme Court in Beckles. This reasoning accords with prior orders of this Court; this Court 

denied a stay where defendant’s anticipated release date was December 14, 2016, and granted a 

stay where defendant’s anticipated release date was August 26, 2021. See USA v. Bernard, 12-cr00780-SI, Dkt. No. 41; USA v. Nottingham, 14-cr-00553-SI, Dkt. No. 33.

The Court will maintain the present stay. This order is without prejudice to defendant 

filing a motion to lift the stay at a later time, should the Beckles decision be delayed beyond its 

expected decision date or should other good cause appear.

The proceedings are STAYED until further order of this Court. The parties shall file a 

joint status report and/or any appropriate motion upon the earlier of: (a) seven days after the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles, or (b) July 20, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00624-SI Document 75 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 2