N.D.Fla.: Gov’t’s appellate brief semi-admitted standing, so it supported standing claim in the § 2255, which he loses on the merits of the claim

Defendant challenged defense counsel’s performance at this suppression hearing for not adequately challenging the search. Based on what defense counsel did not present and the government’s argument in its appeal brief, the court determines that defendant had standing to challenge the search after all, but he would fail on his Franks challenge. [“Further support for the assertion that Defendant would be entitled to claim some degree of standing is found in the Government’s appellate brief, in which it argues that the search was conducted at a location where Defendant ‘routinely resided’ (doc. 213, att. 1 at 6 (page 7 of the brief, page 6 of the exhibit)).”] United States v. Smith, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119199 (N.D. Fla. September 23, 2011).*

The search of defendant’s safe is found to be by voluntary consent. United States v. Matayoshi, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119048 (M.D. Fla. September 22, 2011).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the search warrant for defendant’s computer because defendant had no expectation of privacy from leaving his computer connected to the internet for P2P searches of his hard drive. United States v. Samples, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119040 (N.D. Tex. September 15, 2011).*