IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: Litigation seeking relief under Johnson v. United States,
135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)
ADMINISTRATIVE STANDING ORDER
AND NOW, this .).3
J day of ~ , 2015, in light of the United
'
States Supreme Court's recent decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and
the United States Sentencing Commission's consequent proposal to amend U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.2, it
is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, that:
(1) the Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
("Federal Defender") is appointed to represent all persons potentially eligible for relief under
Johnson who were originally sentenced in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for the limited
purpose of reviewing cases, assessing eligibility for Johnson relief, and notifying the defendants
or their counsel of the status of such review;
(2) for those persons deemed eligible for Johnson relief whom the Federal Defender
previously represented, the Federal Defender shall consult with them to determine whether they
wish to pursue Johnson relief and whether they consent to the representation of the Federal
Defender in doing so;
(3) for those persons deemed eligible for Johnson relief whom the Federal Defender
did not previously represent, the Federal Defender shall consult with them to determine whether
they wish to pursue Johnson relief and whether they consent to the representation of the Federal
Defender in doing so; and, if so, the Federal Defender shall request appointment and submit
requisite financial affidavits;
(4) the United States Probation Office is hereby authorized to disclose to the Federal
Defender the judgment, statement of reasons, and presentence report of those individuals
identified by the Federal Defender as subject to the review described in paragraph (I) of this
Order, and any other relevant additional documents necessary for such review; and
(5) the Clerk's Office shall notify the Federal Defender of all past, present, and future
pro se motions or petitions to seeking Johnson relief, so the Federal Defender may take
appropriate action consistent with this Order.
BY THE COURT:
Petrese B. Tucker
Chief United States District Court Judge
-2-
FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDER OFFICE
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FEDERAL COURT DIVISION - DEFENDER ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA
SUITE 540 WEST -- THE CURTIS CENTER
601 WALNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106
LEIGH M. SKIPPER PHONE NUMBER (2I5) 928-1100 HELEN A. MARINO
CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER FAX NUMBER (2I5) 86I-I593 FIRST ASSISTANT FEDERAL DEFENDER
FAX NUMBER (2I5) 928-llI2
\"'-•~ ·.
December 16, 2015 /\,--s ), '..S U) 4$' c.,).,
The Honorable Petrese B. Tucker
~
Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Room 16613 - United States Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Re: Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)
Dear Chief Judge Tucker:
Thank you again for your assistance earlier this year in securing for us information from the
Sentencing Comillission related to defendants sentenced in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania who are
potentially eligible for relief under the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015), which voided the residual clause of the Anned Career Criminal Act. That information,
coupled with our own internal records of closed cases, has allowed us to begin reviewing our files to
identify eligible defendants.
I am writing now to seek your further assistance in two respects, so that our review may proceed
with the goal of identifying all eligible defendants so they may petition for relief before the one-year
deadline in June 2016. First, to proceed with the review and properly account for our resources, we
would require an appointment order. I have enclosed a form order for your consideration, and
respectfully request that you enter it as an administrative standing order. The order is based on the
appointment order y.ou entered in August 2014 with respect to our office for the review triggered by the
"drugs-minus-two" Sentencing Guidelines amendment. The order is also consistent with the October 28,
2015 memorandum from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, encouraging the efficient
identification and processing of Jolmson claims.
Second, I noted that the information provided by the Sentencing Commission in October
pursuant to your request (on our behalf) was incomplete. In his transmittal e-mail, Mr. Reedt, of the
Commission, explained that lists of defendants sentenced under the following guidelines were still being
compiled: U.S.S.G. §§ 2Kl.3{a)(l)-(2), 2K2.4, 2Sl.l{b)(l)(B)(ii), 3Bl.5, and 4Al.l{e). We would
kindly request that you confirm with Mr. Reedt that we still need that information. Also, there is one
additional list of defendants that is needed to allow us to complete our Johnson review: defendants
The Honorable Petrese B. Tucker
December 16, 2015
Pag·· 2
convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We would greatly appreciate it if you would request tbat information
from Mr. Reedt, as well.
Thank you again, and I appreciate tbe Court's assistance as my office undertakes this important
review. Please Jet me know if Your Honor has any questions, or would like to discuss this matter.
Respectfully,
Chief Federal Defender
cc: The Honorable Legrome D. Davis, Chair, Criminal Business Committee
Louis D. Lappen, First Assistant United States Attorney
Peter F. Schenck, Criminal Chief, United States Attorney's Office
Matthew R MacAvoy, Chief Probation Officer
