Defendant filed a successor 2255 over the alleged nonexistence of his search warrant, and this doesn\u2019t state ground for a successor petition. \u201cEven if Mallety had presented evidence that the search of the Eden Street apartment was conducted without a lawful search warrant, this concerns his legal, rather that factual, innocence.\u201d In re Mallety, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15560 (11th Cir. May 24, 2019).<\/p>\n
The allegations of falsity were negligent at worst and not material. United States v. Romero, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86429 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2019).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment habeas claim that the GPS device was unconstitutionally installed is rejected. It was installed four months before Jones and wouldn\u2019t have been held unconstitutional at the time. Therefore, no ineffective assistance of counsel. Woods v. Woods, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87745 (W.D. Mich. May 24, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant filed a successor 2255 over the alleged nonexistence of his search warrant, and this doesn\u2019t state ground for a successor petition. \u201cEven if Mallety had presented evidence that the search of the Eden Street apartment was conducted without a … Continue reading