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 Def ender 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
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. § 1951, two counts of Brandishing a Firearm
during a Crime of Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c), 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 counts of
Hobbs Act Robbery and 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 counts of Hobbs
Act Robbery, 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 (#25) 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 support 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.
December 22, 2017, the Court issued an Opinion and Order in
which it denied in part Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence to the extent that Defendant
asserted Dean v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1170
(2017), is retroactively applicable on collateral review;
stayed the matter to the extent that Defendant asserted
§ 924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness pursuant to
Johnson; and directed the parties to file a joint
status report no later than ten days after the Supreme Court
issued a ruling in Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110
(9th Cir. 2015), to advise the Court of the
parties' positions on the effect of that ruling.
25, 2018, the government filed a Supplemental Response to
Defendant's Motion to Vacate addressing the Supreme
Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138
S.Ct. 1204 (2018). On June 8, 2018, Defendant filed a
Supplemental Reply to his Motion to Vacate addressing the
Supreme Court's decision in Dimaya. The Court
took this matter under advisement on June 8, 2018.
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 ...