Defendant\u2019s cell phone was seized when he was arrested. Five days later, the government sought a search warrant for the phone. Defendant isn\u2019t yet entitled to return of the phone. United States v. Gonzalez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61279 (D. Neb. Apr. 10, 2019).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 claims are procedurally barred; they were raised on direct appeal. The separate discrete claim defense counsel failed to attempt to undermine the drug dog\u2019s reliability doesn\u2019t show prejudice. Winters v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61648 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 10, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s cell phone was seized when he was arrested. Five days later, the government sought a search warrant for the phone. Defendant isn\u2019t yet entitled to return of the phone. United States v. Gonzalez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61279 (D. … Continue reading