United States District Court, D. Oregon
J. WILLIAMS United States Attorney THOMAS H. EDMONDS
Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff
C. HAY Federal Public Defender STEPHEN R. SADY Chief Deputy
Federal Public Defender ELIZABETH G. DAILY Assistant Federal
Public Defender Attorneys for Defendant
OPINION AND ORDER
J. BROWN, UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Michael George
Lasich's Motion (#32) to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct
Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons
that follow, the Court DENIES in part and
STAYS this matter pending a decision by the
Supreme Court in Lynch v. Dimaya, 137 S.Ct. 31
September 6, 2002, Defendant was charged in a Superseding
Indictment with two counts of Interference with Commerce by
Threat or Violence (Hobbs Act robbery) in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c), two counts of Brandishing a Firearm
during a Crime of Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g), and one count of Felon in Possession of a Firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
March 20, 2003, Defendant pled guilty to the two Hobbs Act
robbery counts and to the one count of Brandishing a Firearm.
29, 2003, Senior District Judge James Redden held a
sentencing hearing, sentenced Defendant to concurrent
121-month terms of imprisonment on the two Hobbs Act robbery
counts, imposed a mandatory consecutive sentence of 84 months
on the count of Brandishing a Firearm, and sentenced
Defendant to three years of supervised release.
5, 2003, the Court entered a Judgment. Defendant did not
appeal his conviction.
25, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate or Correct
Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in which he
asserts his sentence should be vacated. Specifically,
Defendant asserts his sentence was imposed in violation of
the Constitution or laws of the United States because Hobbs
Act robbery is not a crime of violence that can sustain a
conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) after the
Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United
States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) .
9, 2017, Defendant was released from prison and began serving
his three-year term of supervised release.
October 23, 2017, Defendant's Motion to Vacate was fully
briefed, and the Court took Defendant's Motion under
moves to modify or to set aside his sentences on the ground
that Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of
violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) after the Supreme
Court's decision in Johnson. Alternatively,
Defendant asserts the Supreme Court's decision in
Dean v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (2017),
provides a separate grounds for resentencing based on the
correct interpretation of the sentencing provisions in 18
U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 3584(a), and 3553(a).
government asserts Defendant was not sentenced under the
Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e),
and, therefore, Johnson does not apply to this
matter. The government also asserts Dean is not
retroactively applicable on ...