Defendant’s allegation of “gross ineffective assistance of counsel” for not properly litigating his motion to suppress doesn’t overcome the collateral rights waiver in the plea agreement. United States v. Kofalt, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96560 (W.D. Pa. June 8, 2018):
With respect to the second argument, Defendant contends that the error in this case is clear because “counsel was grossly ineffective in litigating his motion to suppress.” (Docket No. 145 at 2). Although now styled as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Defendant’s argument is nothing more than an attempt to re-litigate the suppression issue which previously was decided by this Court and affirmed on appeal. Defendant’s restyled argument does not establish a miscarriage of justice.