The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge
Teresa A. Minkin ("Petitioner") filed the instant motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging her criminal conviction and sentence. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied and her petition is dismissed.
Petitioner was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base (crack), cocaine, heroin, and methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (also known as ecstasy) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(a) and 846. Based upon the allegations in the Superseding Indictment, Petitioner faced a mandatory minimum sentence upon conviction of 120 months. On December 22, 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of crack amounting to at least 35 grams in the aggregate. Based upon Petitioner's offense level and criminal history, she faced a United States Sentencing Guidelines' range of between 120-150 months of incarceration. On April 8, 2005, Petitioner was sentence to 70 months of incarceration. She did not appeal her conviction or sentence.
Petitioner filed the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 making arguments that are difficult to decipher and, at times, border on the absurd.*fn1 Liberally reading the pro se pleadings*fn2 to raise the strongest argument they suggest, see McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999), Petitioner seemingly contends that: (a) the Court lacked jurisdiction over the underlying criminal action. Pet. ¶ 12(A)("Ground One"); (b) her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated because (1) her appointed counsel left her alone with the prosecutor and a detective during a debriefing session in November of 2004, (2) failed to make an argument at sentencing under the holding of Booker v. United States , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and (3) failed to object to the content of the Probation Department's Presentence Investigative Report. Pet. ¶ 12(B) ("Ground Two"); and (c) her sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution because:
Prosecution obtained conviction by unconstitutional failure to disclose to Movant evidence favorable to Movant. Title 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
(1) It was unconstitutional to question movant without her counsel present;
(2) Fail to inform her Title 21 USC is not law.
(3) Fail to inform the court Movant is entitled to the same consideration as Booker v. United States.
Pet. ¶ 12(C)("Ground 3").
The Government has opposed the motion, arguing that: (1) it is barred because Petitioner waived her right to collateral attack of her conviction in her Plea Agreement, and (2) the Petition lacks substantive merit. The Court will address the arguments seriatim.