The named CI\u2019s statement she\u2019d been buying heroin from defendant for three years was probable cause. United States v. Haqq, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165936 (W.D. Ky. Sep. 27, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Probable cause here was based on the CI\u2019s statement and police observing two controlled buys. United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165931 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 27, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Defendant here attempts to use F.R.C.P. 60 to allege a \u201cfraud on the court,\u201d which if anything was a fraud on the state court way back at the investigative stage of the case when the search warrant was issued. Yet, he\u2019s already had a 2255, so this is treated as a successor habeas petition. Finally, it\u2019s a collateral attack waived by the plea agreement. Dorsett v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165679 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 27, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The named CI\u2019s statement she\u2019d been buying heroin from defendant for three years was probable cause. United States v. Haqq, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165936 (W.D. Ky. Sep. 27, 2018).* Probable cause here was based on the CI\u2019s statement and … Continue reading