Defendant filed a motion for new trial after his appeal based on a Giglio claim that certain information, which he is found to merely speculate about, would show that an illegal search occurred before he was indicted. His argument fails because he didn’t argue, and apparently can’t show, that the search would have been found unreasonable if he had it. United States v. Ponzo, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 719 (1st Cir. Jan. 9, 2019).
The fact there was a spoon seen by an officer that he believed had drug residue on it but it turned out to be dried yogurt, didn’t undermine his search claim for a 2255. Defendant essentially concedes the officer was merely wrong, and his inference was credited by the issuing Magistrate. United States v. Hagberg, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2683 (D. Mont. Jan. 8, 2019).*