United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
DE NOVO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge
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.
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
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).
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Report and Recommendation was withdrawn and the objection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.
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).
Law and Analysis
Rule 8(a) Resolution
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).
The law of § 2255 actions generally.
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).
Matthews has not shown the prosecutor withheld