Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Lewis
Citations: 972 F. Supp. 550; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11579; 1997 WL 442410Docket: Criminal No. 94-40044-01-SAC; Civil No. 97-3007-SAC
Court: District Court, D. Kansas; May 20, 1997; Federal District Court
On April 29, 1997, the court issued a memorandum and order regarding James Mandell Lewis' Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence. The court denied Lewis' request to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) based on the Supreme Court’s Bailey decision, suggesting that Lewis could withdraw his entire plea if he chose, leading to potential prosecution on previously dismissed counts. The court required Lewis to confirm his legal representation status within ten days and outlined options for seeking counsel or proceeding pro se. On May 13, 1997, Lewis filed a response reiterating his intent to only seek the vacation of the § 924(c) conviction and requested that his petition be treated as a notice of appeal if the court intended to deny the relief sought. He also stated his inability to afford an attorney and requested the appointment of Mr. Betts, as well as a transfer closer to Topeka for consultation. The court reviewed Lewis' request for reconsideration of its April decision and found no grounds to modify it, thus denying the request. Ultimately, the court denied Lewis' § 2255 motion and affirmed that the order is final and appealable. Lewis' pleading titled 'Movant’s Response to Court’s Memorandum and Order' is treated as a notice of appeal. The court denies Lewis’ request for an evidentiary hearing, citing that such a hearing is unnecessary when a 2255 motion raises only legal questions, referencing case law. Since Lewis’ request for the court to reconsider its April 29, 1997, memorandum and order was denied, his request for appointment of counsel is deemed moot, and he is advised to direct future requests for counsel to the Tenth Circuit. The court recognizes conflicting case law supportive of Lewis' position and therefore issues a certificate of appealability. Lewis' specific relief sought in his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 is denied, while his request to treat his response as a notice of appeal is granted. Additionally, the clerk is instructed to process this response as an appeal. Lewis’ claim of not receiving the court's prior order until May 5, 1997, is acknowledged, and his request to file his response late is granted.