Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

_ Case 3:03-cr-00117-DJS Document 21 Filed 08/O3/2005 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DE$TRICT COURT _
DISTRICT OF CINNECTICUT · ‘
JOHN DELGADO, :\ l I
Defendant-movant, ii Nos. 3:Oj6§117(DJS) Dig?
¤’ 3:O4CV1796(DJS)
VS . ’ 3 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Q; July 27, 2005 i
Respondent. Q;
DEFENDANTeMOVANTISmMOTIO mFORiRECONSIDERATION
M - . . . . .- e
Defendant—movant John Delgado, ppg sg, respectfully moves {
for reconsideration of this Court's1unsigned Memorandum of
Decision ("Document 20") filed JulyQ20, 2005 denying his motion
for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255., In support, Delgado submits
the following: i
1. The first claim Delgado adkanced relates to the
constitutional infirmity of his staDe convictions relied upon to
enhance his federal sentence under hhs Armed Career Criminal Act J
("ACCA"). The Court denied this clgim without prejudice in light I
of Johnson X; United States, 125 S.Dt. 1571 (2005). SEE, [
Document 20, at 2-4. é L
2. In his second claim, DelgaLo asserts, inggr alia, that
his sentencing enhancement under th; ACCA amounts to a violation
of his Sixth Amendment rights, and in his third claim Delgado Z
asserts that his counsel was ineffeLtive for failing to advance Y
by way of a direct appeal, the argu ents presented in Delgado's § j
2255 motion. The Court denied thos claims holding that they R

T"“`Y—rr-—e————Y-c»aa.i______Y____Y __ pv g


I
- * ‘ Case 3:03-cr-00117-DJS Document 21 Filed 08/O3/2005 Page 2 of 4
were "patently meritless." SEE, Ddcument 20, at 4.
3. Although all of Delgado'sIclaims relate to whether his
sentence in this matter is constit tional, and although the
government asserted that the sente ce is constitutional in its
prematurely filed response; the go ernment was not required to
supplement its answer with the rel vant guilty plea and
sentencing transcripts as Rule 5(b) of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Proceedings explicitll requires to be done. ld;
Moreover, in order to meaningfullyIbrief his arguments, Delgado
moved for a copy of his guilty pled and sentencing transcripts,
which the Court denied as moot wheq it denied Delgado's § 2255
motion. SEE, Document 20, at 5. E
4. The first reason this Courh should grant the instant I
motion is because the Court has overlooked a number of relevant I
facts, which Delgado cannot specifi ally or properly identify I
because of the lack of transctipts. I
5. The second reason the instFnt motion should be granted
is because the Court overlooked theIlegal principle that ppg sg I
submissions are to be liberally conbtrued to raise the strongest
arguments they suggest. In overloo}ing that legal principle, the I
Court further overlooked very recent Supreme Court authority
I
which supports the second and thirdIclaims advanced by Delgado.
That being Sheppard, where the high court interpreted the ACCA to
require the government to come forw rd with actual proof of the
conviction. Meaning, NCIC printout and police reports are not
the accepted means to establish the predicate for the ACCA
2 I l
{ .

, - — Case 3:03-cr-00117-DJS Document 21 Filed 08/O3/2005 Page 3 of 4
enhancement. Rather, the government must have proof of what the
actual disposition was in order fod a proper determination as to
whether those dispositions satisfygthe ACCA predicates. Sheppard g
fully supports Delgado's second and third claims, and the Court I
overlooked that very recent authorJty. L
6. The third reason the instjnt motion should be granted is Y
because Delgado was not provided w’th a copy of his guilty plea 2
and sentencing transcripts, thus hj was denied any chance of I
meaningfully briefing his second add third claims in view of the
fact that those transcripts are hi hly relevant to Delgado's [
second and third claims.
Accordingly, because the Court overlooked relevant facts,
governing authority, and denied Delgado's request for highly J
relevant transcripts, his right to a meaningful proceeding has
been denied and the Court should reconsider its decision, vacate
the same, grant Delgado's motion for transcripts, and stay the
proceedings to afford Delgado a mea ingful opportunity to brief
his issues after he receives his guilty plea and sentencing
transcripts.
Respe tfully submi. ej/
. ln . I
” ; ‘° "`i'é `l i él ééd `D M `" i
€Lg. No. 1 55g014—’ `
FCI Otisville
P.O. Box 1000
Otisville, NY 10963 {
1
3 I
j |

~ I
. — · · Case 3:03-cr-00117-DJS Document 2.1 Filed 08/O3/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE O -SERVICE
It is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing was
deposited in the legal mailbox at _CI Otisville, postage prepaid,
thiss28th day of July, 2005, eddre sed to:
United States Att rney's Office
District of C nnecticut
450 Main treet
Hartford, C 06103
» I if
B : A .; ..... ....yir.,.....
F n e •·[», pro EE
i E
i l
Q i