Officer\u2019s entry on to the curtilage was justified by the smell of ether (exigent circumstances) and defendant\u2019s prior involvement with manufacturing meth. United States v. Weiler, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55793 (E.D. Mo. May 20, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s \u00a7 2255 claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not specifically challenging certain parts of the USMJ\u2019s findings on his search claim did not prejudice him when the court made findings on those issues anyway. United States v. Goodlett, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56009 (N.D. Okla. June 4, 2010).*<\/p>\n
The court finds more credible the government\u2019s version that the defendant and his father consented to a search of their property for stolen property linked to defendant. United States v. Clutter, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55810 (W.D. Mo. May 17, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s \u00a7 2255 argument that defense counsel did not press a specific search argument is belied by the record. The issue was fully addressed by the USMJ, USDJ, and USCA. Jones v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55750 (D. Maine May 10, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading