Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Sept. 18, 2020

Stewart v. United States

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:16-cv-05111
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCriminal
In one sentence

In Stewart v. United States, Judge Nathan vacated Michael Stewart’s 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction and granted his petition challenging it.

Who this affects

Michael Stewart’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was vacated, and the related civil docket was closed.

What happened

In Stewart v. United States, Michael Stewart challenged his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a federal criminal statute. The judgment refers to reasons stated in a separate order dated September 18, 2020.

The court vacated Stewart’s § 924(c) conviction, citing United States v. Davis, and granted his petition asking the court to review his conviction. The court also closed the related civil case docket.

Judge Alison Nathan was the judge identified for this matter. The supplied judgment does not include the separate order’s reasoning beyond its reference to Davis.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Stewart v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-05111
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
Sept. 18, 2020

Background

The judgment concerns Michael Stewart’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The court’s judgment states that the reasons for its decision appear in an order dated September 18, 2020, and cites United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).

Ruling

The court vacated Stewart’s conviction under § 924(c). It therefore granted Stewart’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning his request for court review of the conviction. The court also ordered that the related civil docket, 16-cv-5111, be closed.

Disposition

The judgment grants the petition, vacates the § 924(c) conviction, and closes the civil docket. The supplied text does not provide the separate September 18 order’s analysis.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.