The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge
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
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
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).
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...