\u201cPetitioner alleges that Attorney Greene failed to present critical documents for Petitioner’s review prior to his guilty plea. Petitioner contends that he should have been shown \u2018evidence of there being a valid search warrant,\u2019 \u2018computer chat logs where the government possibly committed entrapment,\u2019 and evidence that Petitioner \u2018blocked\u2019 someone on Facebook that he knew was an adult police officer who was harassing him and alleges that he only met the person to get them to stop harassing him. \u2026 The Government responds that Petitioner has not identified information withheld or unknown to him or how reviewing that information would have changed the outcome of his case. \u2026 The Government argues that Petitioner should know better than anyone whether he conversed online with minors and enticed them into sexual activity or child pornography, and the Court can rightly presume that Petitioner would not have pleaded guilty unless the underlying facts were actually true. \u2026 [\u00b6] The Court first notes that Petitioner chose to plead guilty and did not file a motion to suppress evidence or proceed to trial.\u201d Phelps v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52147 (E.D.Tenn. Mar. 23, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Petitioner\u2019s 2255 claim was Stone barred, and he didn\u2019t object to the R&R. No CoA. Altunar-Jimenez v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7688 (6th Cir. Mar. 23, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
12\u00bd month old information for child pornography warrant was not stale. United States v. Irons, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51811 (D.Mass. Mar. 23, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cPetitioner alleges that Attorney Greene failed to present critical documents for Petitioner’s review prior to his guilty plea. Petitioner contends that he should have been shown \u2018evidence of there being a valid search warrant,\u2019 \u2018computer chat logs where the government … Continue reading