Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Government Brief Hyatt.pdf

Government Brief Hyatt.pdf

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14|Likes:
Published by Erin Fuchs

More info:

Published by: Erin Fuchs on Nov 13, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/07/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIOEASTERN DIVISIONDAVID L. HYATT, ) Case No. 5:93 CR 0237 ) Petitioner, ) ) Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. vs. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEFUNDER RULE 60(b), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
  The United States of America, by and through counsel, submits that David L. Hyatt's motion for relief fromjudgmentunder Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure iswithout merit; and it is properly denied without hearing.  The governments position is more fully set out in thefollowing memorandum.
DISCUSSION A.Preliminary Statement.
 The clear thrust of Hyatts Civil Rule 60(b) motion is thatthe indictment (and superseding indictment) giving rise to hisconviction and life sentence was defective. Specifically, Hyatt
Case: 5:93-cr-00237-DDD Doc #: 384 Filed: 08/14/13 1 of 14. PageID #: 368
 
- 2 -alleges the government and the Court proceeded against himon anindictment that failed to charge an offense; thereby “strippingthe Court of subject-matter jurisdiction” and voiding the judgement. (See generally R. 380: 60(b) Motion, PageID #325-26). Although he claims to the contrary, Hyatt is unquestionablychallenging the underlying conviction/sentence, and is notasserting a defect in § 2255 (habeas) proceedings. Consequently,Hyatts motion constitutes a second and successive § 2255petition which must first be submitted to the Sixth Circuit Courtof Appeals.
B.Procedural History of Case.
Hyatt was tried and convicted by jury (November 19, 1993) ona superseding indictment which charged himand others withconspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent todistribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1)and 841(b)(1)(A).
1
 
1
 Hyatt was arrested on July 13, 1993, in New York City. Heand five co-defendants were originally indicted on August 3,1993. A superseding indictment was returned on September 29,1993, which added additional co-defendants. The supersedingindictment alleged a conspiracy, “Beginning approximately in thefall of 1990 and continuing to at least on or about April 10,1992.The superseding indictment set out overt acts whichgenerally described the conspiracy headed by Hyatt, and outlineda pattern of multi-kilogramtransactions and events, including aseizure of 20 kilograms of cocaine fromthree co-conspirators(couriers) on April 10, 1992, which were introduced at trial assubstantive evidence against Hyatt. Trial testimony furtherlinked Hyatt to multiple tractor-trailer shipments of hundreds okilograms (minimally) of cocaine. The indictment and supersedingindictment are attached hereto as Exhibits A & B.
Case: 5:93-cr-00237-DDD Doc #: 384 Filed: 08/14/13 2 of 14. PageID #: 369
 
- 3 -Hyatts conviction and life sentence were affirmed by theSixth Circuit Court of Appeals (C.A. No. 94-3133) on or aboutSeptember 9, 1995.
2
On May 4, 1998, Hyatt filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence. The district courtdismissed the motion as time-barred under The Anti-TerrorismandEffective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Hyatt appealed thedistrict courts ruling (C.A. No. 98-4229). On March 27, 2000,the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court inall respects. See United States v. Hyatt, 207 F.3d 831 (6
th
 Cir.2000).On or about February 2, 2001, Hyatt filed a motion with theSixth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, docketed as C.A. No. 01-3011, seeking authority to assert various claims based onApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). OnOctober 30, 2001, the Circuit Court denied Hyatts motion.On June 23, 2003, Hyatt filed another motion with the SixthCircuit (C.A. No. 03-3680), again requesting authorization toassert his Apprendi claims in the district court pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 2255 6(3), or in the alternative, in a second and 
2
 Hyatts life sentence was not the result of a statutorilyrequired penalty; rather, it was based upon a U.S.S.G.computation which resulted in the maximumTotal Offense Level of 43 (actually the offense level was initially computed as a Level46).
Case: 5:93-cr-00237-DDD Doc #: 384 Filed: 08/14/13 3 of 14. PageID #: 370

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->