Defendant’s 2255 version of events was implausible because, to prevail on this claim, he’d have to admit that he repeatedly lied to the officers who interviewed him when he consented to a search of his computers. That’s reason enough to deny the claim. Debaere v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189063 (M.D. N.C. Oct. 20, 2017):
To be clear, the Court is not making a determination at this time about which set of facts is accurate. Instead, it is enough to simply note that Petitioner and the Government have provided very different versions of the facts. This means that in order to prevail on a motion to suppress, Petitioner would have had to present his version of the facts and have the presiding judge believe his version over the Government’s version, which would have been no easy task in the present case for two reasons. First, Petitioner would have to take the stand to present his version of the facts. In doing so, he would have to admit that he repeatedly lied to the officers concerning his downloading of child pornography and the existence of other computers, thereby confirming his willingness to lie to avoid criminal liability. Second, although Cook and Sykes could have testified to the Government’s version of events, Petitioner does not indicate that he had any other witness supporting his version of the key moments. His wife was present in the house, but in her statement she does not report seeing Petitioner turn over the mini laptop or report hearing Sykes make the statement about her consent to Petitioner. Therefore, she could not speak to either the timing or the circumstances of that event and it would be Petitioner’s testimony against the officers’ testimony. It is unlikely that he could have prevailed on any motion to suppress the images found on the seized computers.