Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

or acra llc1111111rr___,..l_.._._.l..lia.._.iu...r.u...lrr .... 11 .... --.i“-...nlrillii.-.“..._......iirIrmm.._l._w.llrllr
.· Case 3:00-cr-00069-AHN Document 244 Filed 07/12/2006 Page1of3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CLINTON COX, Case No. 3:00-CR—OO69(AHN)‘f ·I·* ·
Petitioner: Civil Action Nd@%3¥04L%VF13§3QpHN) é
V- T Q
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent:
l
MOTION TO STAY OR HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE
Now comes, the Petitioner, Clinton Cox, pro~se (Hereinafter,
"Petitioner") in the above entitled case and hereby respectfully 2
submits the instant motion to stay or hold motion filed under 28 ]
U.S.C. § 2255 in abeyance. In support thereof, it is stated: l
1). On or about August 9, 2004, Petitioner filed a motion pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in this Court.
2), In his § 2255 motion Petitioner asserted three grounds for
relief, including that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 159
L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). In a reply, the Government contended that
Blakely does not afford relief to petitioners on collateral attack.
(See, Government°s Response to "Notice of Judicial Cognizance,"
dated on February 15, 2005).
3). The Second Circuit has held that the decision in Blakely
does apply to cases on collateral review. green v. United States,
397 F.3d 101 (2nd Cir. 2005).










V
.. “ l Case 3:00-cr-00069-AHN Document 244 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 2 of 3 V
V
4). Recently, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Burton V
v. Waddington, U.S., No. 05-9222, (cert. granted 6/5/06) to decide V
whether Blakely is retroactive on collateral review. V
5). The [forth-coming] decision in Burton v. Waddin ton will con- V
trol the resolution of the Petitioner's pending case, and it will V
serve to clarify the scope of review in this matter. Therefore, I
Petitioner's case should be held in abeyance until The Supreme Court V
decides Burton v. Waddington. V
6). Finally. in the interest of judicial economy this request V
should be granted because it will foreclose any further litigation V
of the instant matter. V
Conclusion '
For the above stated reasons, Petitioner requests that this V
Honorable Court stay or hold in abeyance the pending § 2255 motion. V
Respectfully submitted, V
7, .5, va V

·- ` 1 _ Case 3:00-cr-00069-AHN Document 244 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 3 of 3 1
1 I y E
‘ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE “
` I, Cl -.·Cox,.--pro-gg ,hereby certify that I have served atrue i
and correct copy of tlieforegoing: ‘ 1
"Motion to Stay or Hold in Abeyance" n I . R
_ _ . Which is deemed Bled at the time it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to I
‘ the court, Houston vs. Lack, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1938), upon the court and parties to ` I p 1
litigation and/or his/her attorney(s) of record, by placing sme in a sealed, postage ` `
prepaid envelope addressed to: l
Ja-img; Q7: /CIM/4 Qréj n -
. U.S. Attorney°s ffice` · t _ p
‘ U.S. Courthouse l · I
. District of Connecticut
915 Lafayette Boulevard I .
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 r I
and deposited same inthe United States Postal Mail at the United States Penitentiary, ‘
l
Sigriedonthis 5th day of I July {2006 I
I ' ' n Respectfully Sulainitted,
. CLINTON COX, §RO SE - l I
n ‘ - REGNO. .13883-014
n i n n 7; 5 , O Q
l _.-i, 1