Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JACKSON v. U.S.

United States District Court, S.D. New York


January 13, 2005.

PATRICK JACKSON, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge

ORDER

Jackson was convicted after trial of illegal possession, as a felon, of ammunition and a firearm and, on January 22, 2001, sentenced principally to a term of imprisonment of 235 months. The conviction was affirmed by the Second Circuit and certiorari denied. United States v. Jackson, 301 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 952 (2003). He now moves for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, raising several grounds. None is meritorious.

1. The contention that the Court incorrectly and impermissibly considered his Florida State nolo contendre pleas as convictions for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) sentence enhancements was not raised on direct review and therefore procedurally defaulted. In any case, the argument is without merit. See United States v. Jackson, No. 00 Crim. 0285 (LAK), 2000 WL 816903 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2000).

  2. Jackson's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the status of his driver's license and for failing to call certain witnesses at the suppression hearing and at trial is baseless, substantially for the reasons set forth in the government's letter at pages 9-14.

  3. The claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is without merit for the reasons set forth at pages 14-15 of the government's letter.

  4. The claim that an individual who was not a member of the prospective jury panel was seated on the jury without being subjected to voir dire is based on obvious typographical errors in rendering a difficult name in the transcript. Juror number 9, Sadat Uysal, was a member of the prospective jury, was subjected to voir dire, and was empaneled. 5. The Vienna convention arguments were rejected by the Court of Appeals on direct appeal and in any case are baseless for the reasons set forth at page 17 of the government's letter.

  6. Jackson's sufficiency of the evidence argument with respect to the interstate commerce element was rejected summarily on direct appeal. In any case, the evidence at trial amply met the government's burden with respect to the interstate commerce element. See United States v. Santiago, 238 F.3d 213, 216-17 (2d Cir. 2001); gov't letter at 18.

  Accordingly, the motion is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied, and the Court certifies that any appeal herefrom would not be taken in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

  SO ORDERED.

20050113

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.