\u201cAccording to the defendant’s motion, he was using the rental car with permission from its authorized driver. (Doc. No. 16: Motion at 1). However, he has not alleged that he was listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement with the car’s owner, Enterprise Rent-A-Car.\u201d \u201cn.2. The defendant is hopeful for a change in the law, (Doc. No. 16-1: Memorandum at 5); however, this inferior Court is obliged to follow published, controlling law in this Circuit.\u201d Denied. United States v. Derrick, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3115 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 3, 2018). [And Byrd v. United States on that issue is argued today.]<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 is denied. One of his claims is that defense counsel was ineffective for not calling a witness at the suppression hearing. He does not, however, show that the witness\u2019s testimony has any relevance to the issuance of the warrant or would change the outcome. United States v. Fennell, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2685 (W.D. Va. Jan. 8, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAccording to the defendant’s motion, he was using the rental car with permission from its authorized driver. (Doc. No. 16: Motion at 1). However, he has not alleged that he was listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement … Continue reading