IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

(04 Cc 2800)

)
)
)
)
v. ) No. 03 CR 36 “
)
ALBERT ROSSINI, )

)

)

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

As of November 14, 2004 Albert Rossini (“Rossini”) was
seeking to appeal this Court’s April 20, 2004 memorandum opinion
and order that had dismissed his 28 U.S.C. §2255 (“Section 2255”)
motion (which was assigned this District Court’s Case No.

04 C 2800), under which Rossini sought to challenge the sentence
that this Court had imposed on him following his guilty plea. On
November 15 our Court of Appeals issued the attached order
(“Order”) vacating this Court’s judgment of dismissal because
Rossini was then before that court on his direct criminal appeal,
thus causing the proposed appeal relating to the dismissal of his
Section 2255 motion to be premature.

On April 5, 2005 the Court of Appeals then issued its
unpublished order that affirmed all of this Court’s substantive
rulings raised on the direct appeal, going on to enter a limited
remand as to sentencing in accordance with the procedure that

court had established in United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471

(7 Cir. 2005). This Court promptly issued a memorandum order


confirming that it would have imposed the same sentence on
Rossini under an advisory guideline regime, and on May 4 the
Court of Appeals issued an order in the direct appeal proceeding,
affirming this Court’s judgment in its entirety.

This memorandum is being issued to inform Rossini that if he
still wishes to pursue a Section 2255 motion in light of the
intervening events referred to here, he must file a statement to
that effect, either incorporating or modifying his earlier
motion, on or before May 27, 2005.1 In the absence of such a
filing, this Court will operate on the premise that Rossini has
decided to forgo seeking such relief based on all the

circumstances as they have now evolved.

eal Eocralaaae’

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 9, 2005

1 If and to the extent that Rossini may wish to reassert
any of the matters set out in his Section 2255 motion, he is free
to do so in a brief filing that simply refers to those matters
(also making clear in the same filing what claims, if any, that
were originally addressed in the motion are no longer being
advanced on his part).


Qupd

Gnited States Court of Appeals

No. 04-2276

For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 25, 2004
Decided November 15, 2004

Before
Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Cireuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE SYKES, Circuit Judge

ALBERT ROSSINI, Appeal from the United States
Petitioner-Appellant, District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division
v.

No. 03-CR-36

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee. Milton Shadur,

Judge.

ORDER

Albert Rossini has filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2255, and an application for a certificate of appealability. Rossini’s
direct criminal appeal is pending in this court. See No. 04-1298. Accordingly, this
action is premature. We therefore VACATE the district court judgment and
REMAND the case to the district court with instructions to stay proceedings
pending the resolution of Rossini’s direct appeal. See United States v. Barger, 178

F.3d 844, 848 (1999).