CI\u2019s information about defendant\u2019s grow operation, \u201cwhich is not a fly-by-night affair,\u201d was a couple of weeks old but it was not stale. United States v. Widi, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58881 (D. Me. February 23, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant admittedly consented to the officer\u2019s entry during a knock-and-talk, and there is no showing they refused to leave. He consented to the later search. United States v. Perez-Saavedra, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59071 (N.D. Iowa May 7, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant would fail on the prejudice prong of ineffective assistance because it is apparent the motion would have been denied. United States v. Carrasco, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58789 (E.D. Mich. April 19, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Appellate counsel\u2019s failure to argue defendant\u2019s search and seizure claim on appeal was not ineffective assistance because it was frivolous to argue there was no probable cause. Garey v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59239 (M.D. Ga. March 29, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading