Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Matthews

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

August 14, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAVID MATTHEWS

          JAMES JUDGE

          DE NOVO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge

         Petitioner David Matthews (”Matthews”) filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 32) and a Motion for Discovery (Doc. 33). Because Matthews has not carried his burden of proving that favorable, material evidence was withheld from him, his §2255 Motion and Motion for Discovery should be denied.

         I. Background

         Matthews was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea entered in March 2016 in the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division, on one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Matthews was sentenced to 87 months of imprisonment (Docs. 22, 27, 29). Matthews did not appeal his conviction or sentence.

         Matthews filed his first Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and a Motion for Discovery in March 2018 (Docs. 32, 33).

         A Report and Recommendation was issued, recommending the Motion be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 34). Matthews objected to that Report and Recommendation (Doc. 35). The Report and Recommendation was withdrawn and the objection thereto was stricken (Doc. 38). The undersigned was ordered to file a de novo Report and Recommendation (Doc. 37).

         The sole ground raised by Matthews in his § 2255 Motion is whether his right to Due Process was violated by the Government's failure to disclose the district judge's alleged degenerative brain disorder and the “favors” the Lake Charles Police “owed” to the district judge (Doc. 32). Matthews also contends the district judge's alleged brain disorder caused her to over-sentence him for unseized or fabricated drug quantities, impose inapplicable sentencing enhancements, and deprive him of “receiving credit-concurrent sentences” (Doc. 32). Matthews asserts his claim is based on “newly discovered evidence” (Doc. 32).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Rule 8(a) Resolution

         The Court is able to resolve the merits of this § 2255 application without an evidentiary hearing because there is no genuine issue of material fact relevant to the claims of the petitioner, and the court records provide the required and adequate factual basis necessary to the resolution of the application. See United States v. Green, 882 F.2d. 999, 1008 (5th Cir. 1989); Section 2255 Rule 8(a).

         B. The law of § 2255 actions generally.

         There are four grounds upon which a federal prisoner may move to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence: (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence; or (4) the sentence is "otherwise subject to collateral attack." See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. Cates, 952 F.2d 149, 151 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 504 U.S. 962 (1992). The scope of relief under § 2255 is consistent with that of the writ of habeas corpus. See Cates, 952 F.2d at 151; see also United States v. Placente, 81 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 1996).

         C. Matthews has not shown the prosecutor withheld ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.