= U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York

OST wy ety abe, ENE Ay ene The Silvio J. Mollo Buildi A el i a Cee ie New York, New York 10007 □ deecrnemmneene □□□□ August 17,2022 #PUSDC SONY BY ECF | DOCUMENT fe Eg ee mae The Honorable John F. Keenan | ELEC PRONICALLY PHS United States District Judge pDOC # Southern District of New York BATE FILED: □□□□□□□ 500 Pearl Street Sica □□□ □□□□□ New York, New York 10007 Re: United States vy. Michael Campbell, 16 Civ. 5080 (JFK); 11 Cr. 912 (JFK) Dear Judge Keenan: As set forth below, the Government respectfully requests that this Court stay further briefing on defendant Michael Campbell’s pending motion for reconsideration. Campbell, through counsel Barry Leiwant, consents to this request. On August 10, 2022, Campbell filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 13, 2022 Opinion and Order denying Campbell’s habeas motion, which challenged his two convictions under

(c) on the grounds that the underlying predicates no longer qualified as crimes of violence. Campbell’s motion for reconsideration argues that assault in aid of racketeering, in violation of

(a)(3) predicated on New York assault law, can be committed recklessly and therefore does not qualify as a crime of violence under Borden v. United States, 141 8. Ct. 1817 (2021). The additional argument raised in Campbell’s motion for reconsideration is complex. However, the question has been squarely presented to the Court of Appeals by codefendant Darren Morris on direct appeal. See United States v. Darren Morris, No. 16-6 (2d Cir.). The Morris case was argued on June 25, 2020 and is now pending decision. Other litigation that the Morris panel may have been awaiting has now been resolved, and Morris has recently requested that the panel now proceed to decision in his case. See No. 16-6, Doc. No. 113 (filed July 8, 2022). Because the exact issue presented by Campbell’s motion for reconsideration is therefore likely to be decided by the Court of Appeals in the near future, the Government respectfully requests—with the consent of the defendant—that this Court stay further briefing on the motion for reconsideration pending the Morris decision. See Wang v. United States, No. 13-CV~-3524 DLI,

, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2015) (staying habeas proceedings pending the disposition of a Supreme Court case involving “the same question of law,” in the interest of “judicial economy”); see also Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2012) (“‘[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court

Page 2

to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936))). Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney

by: \/ ; op — Christopher J. DiMase Jacob R. Fiddelman Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-1024 ce: Barry Leiwant, Esq.

Defense counsel having no objection, the Government's request to stay further briefing on the defendant's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The parties shail file a joint status update by no later than November 23, 2022.

SO ORDERED. 5 ate □□ of Kea , Dated: New York, New York We yy SV ere August 22, 2022 iv John F. Keenan United States District Judge