Opinion

Ponder v. United States

Court
District Court, S.D. Florida
Filed
Apr 15, 2021
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-20976-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS/MCALILEY

(97-00162-CR-MIDDLEBROOKS)

TOBIAN EUGENE PONDER,

Movant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

_________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Chris McAliley’s Report

and Recommendation (“Report”) (DE 11), recommending granting Movant Tobian Eugene

Ponder’s counseled Motion to Vacate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (DE 3).

Movant was convicted, for Count 3, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) predicated solely on a

conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery offense which was charged in Count 1. Conspiracy

to commit Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under §

924(cc)(3)(A)’s elements clause. See Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069, 1075-76 (11th

Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the Report recommends, and the government concedes, that

Movant’s conviction and sentence on Count 3 should be vacated. Upon de novo review of

the Report and the record in this case, I agree.

Based upon the foregoing, I will grant Movant’s § 2255 motion and also grant

Movant a full resentencing hearing. I note that the Government has objected to the Report

on the sole ground that the First Step Act’s change to §924(c)’s “stacking” provision is not

retroactive and therefore should not be applied at the resentencing. (DE 12). Movant filed a

response to the Government’s objections, asserting that application of the First Step Act’s

amendments to §924(c) within the context of a resentencing following vacatur of a

conviction in a habeas proceeding does not constitute a “retroactive” application of the law.

(DE 13). As to that one issue, I will reserve ruling until the resentencing hearing. I will

otherwise adopt the Report in its entirety.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

(1) The Report (DE 11) is ADOPTED to the extent set forth above.

(2) Movant Tobian Eugene Ponder’s Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(DE 3) is GRANTED.

(3) Final judgment shall be entered by separate Order.

(4) Movant’s conviction and sentence as to Count 3 in the underlying criminal case

(97-00162-CR-MIDDLEBROOKS), will be vacated by separate Order, and a

resentencing hearing will be scheduled thereafter.

(5) The Government’s objections to the Report (DE 12) shall be taken under

advisement and determined at the resentencing hearing.

(6) Certificate of Appealability: Because I am granting Movant the habeas relief he

requests, it does not appear necessary to make any determination about whether

to issue a certificate of appealability. However, to the extent that my decision is

appealable, I decline to issue a certificate of appealability after having considered

the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 14th day of April, 2021.

i 7 - aA, LO!

Donald M. Middlebrooks

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.