The government responded to the initial motion to suppress by saying it wouldn\u2019t use the evidence obtained in the search. The court held the motion was then moot. Defendant pro se then claimed that meant that the officer must have perjured himself to get the search warrant in the first place. The government reiterates it\u2019s not using the evidence, and the motion remains moot. United States v. James, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122513 (D. Nev. July 23, 2018).*<\/p>\n
2255 petitioner\u2019s claims involving his arrest and the related search were decided on the merits against him before conviction. They can\u2019t be raised again. Sampson v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122243 (D. Md. July 23, 2018).*<\/p>\n
2255 petitioner lost in the district court on claims including not getting a Franks hearing. The court of appeals denies a CoA. Clark v. United States, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20358 (6th Cir. July 20, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s IAC claim is conclusory and fails. United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122094 (E.D. Mich. July 23, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government responded to the initial motion to suppress by saying it wouldn\u2019t use the evidence obtained in the search. The court held the motion was then moot. Defendant pro se then claimed that meant that the officer must have … Continue reading