\u201cThe felony probation-violation arrest warrant alone was all the police needed to arrest James at any time, so his warrantless seizure argument is simply frivolous.\u201d Another argument mentioned in passing is treated as waived for failure to flesh it out. United States v. James, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95908 (S.D. Ga. July 21, 2016).*<\/p>\n
2255 petitioner raised a merits Fourth Amendment claim. When the government responded that was barred, he raised an IAC claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise it. This did not \u201crelate back\u201d under F.R.C.P. 15(c), and it was time barred. \u201cEven if Movant had timely amended his \u00a7 2255 motion, Movant would not be entitled to relief because he did not have standing to contest the search of the back pack. Indeed, Movant expressly disavows ownership or possession of the bag.\u201d Thus, he fails to show prejudice from any IAC claim. Lewis v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92999 (E.D.N.C. July 18, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe felony probation-violation arrest warrant alone was all the police needed to arrest James at any time, so his warrantless seizure argument is simply frivolous.\u201d Another argument mentioned in passing is treated as waived for failure to flesh it out. … Continue reading