1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO SUPPLEMENT HIS MOTION TO 

VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT HIS SENTENCE (ECF No. 663) 

 On March 9, 2016, a jury convicted Defendant Curtis Scott of aiding and 

abetting a carjacking, aiding and abetting the discharge of a gun in furtherance of a 

carjacking, and making false statements to a federal law enforcement officer. (See 

Verdict Form, ECF No. 92.) The Court sentenced Scott to a term of 180 months in 

custody. (See Judgment, ECF No. 585, PageID.5660.) 

 On September 10, 2021, Scott filed a motion to vacate his convictions and 

sentence and for a new trial pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (See Mot., ECF No. 663.) 

The Government opposes Scott’s motion. (See Gvt. Resp., ECF No. 675.) The 

Government contends that “[c]laims raised on direct appeal and resolved adversely 

to [a] petitioner should be deemed unreviewable under § 2255 as previously 

litigated,” and it insists that “Scott’s motion is a laundry list of issues he raised 

Case 2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG ECF No. 679, PageID.6307 Filed 12/08/21 Page 1 of 3
2 

[unsuccessfully] both in his motion for a new trial before this Court, and in his appeal 

to the Sixth Circuit.” (Id., PageID.6286.) 

 On October 20, 2021, the Court directed the Government to supplement its 

response to Scott’s motion by submitting a chart to the Court that “(1) identifie[d] 

all of the arguments in Scott’s current Section 2255 motion that he previously raised 

and (2) identifie[d] where in the record either this Court or the Sixth Circuit rejected 

those arguments.” (Order, ECF No. 676, PageID.6290.) The Government filed its 

supplemental submission on December 6, 2021. (See Gvt. Supp. Br., ECF No. 678.) 

In that submission, the Government acknowledged that one issue Scott had raised in 

his motion – “his lawyer’s failure to argue against the false statement charge in 

closings” – had not previously been raised by Scott. (Id., PageID.6296.) The 

Government then explained why Scott was not entitled to relief on that claim. (See 

id., PageID. 6296-6301.) Finally, the Government produced a chart that identified 

where in the record all of Scott’s remaining arguments had been raised before and 

where in the record those arguments had been rejected. (See id., PageID.6302-6304.) 

 The Court now directs Scott to file a supplemental brief in response to the 

Government’s December 6 submission. In that brief, Scott shall identify any errors 

in the Government’s chart described immediately above. More specifically, if Scott 

believes that any of the record citations included on that chart are incorrect, he shall 

identify those citations and explain why the citations fail to show that he had 

Case 2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG ECF No. 679, PageID.6308 Filed 12/08/21 Page 2 of 3
3 

previously raised the identified argument and/or that the argument had previously 

been rejected. In addition, Scott shall respond to the Government’s argument that 

he is not entitled to relief on his claim that his lawyer failed to argue against the false 

statement charge during closing arguments. 

Scott shall file this supplemental brief by no later than February 14, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 8, 2021 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on December 8, 2021, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9761 

Case 2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG ECF No. 679, PageID.6309 Filed 12/08/21 Page 3 of 3