The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sand, J.
Petitioner Kenneth Brown, appearing pro se, filed the instant petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial in this Court of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and three counts of wire fraud, and was sentenced to sixty months imprisonment on the conspiracy count, to run concurrently with sentences of eighty-seven months imprisonment on the wire fraud counts. Petitioner now raises two grounds for relief. First, he claims that his trial counsel was ineffective. Second, Petitioner claims that newly discovered evidence proves his actual innocence. Petitioner has filed additional motions requesting discovery during the pendency of his § 2255 petition.
For the reasons set forth below, the petition and accompanying motions are denied.
The following facts were established at trial. Petitioner and his co-conspirators Kenneth Sheppard, John Gompper, and Paul Chovanec conducted a fraudulent "advance fee" scheme which purported to offer investors millions of dollars to invest in so-called high-yield investment programs ("HYIPs"). In exchange for a substantial advance fee, Petitioner and his co-conspirators would offer investors access to millions of dollars of funds, available for investing in HYIPs. While Petitioner and his co-conspirators did not claim to own these funds, they claimed that they had the authority to make the funds available to investors. Sheppard recruited victims of the scheme on an internet website and referred them to Petitioner after obtaining their bank account statements and other financial information.
Petitioner posed as financier for the scheme. He promised victims that he would provide a "proof of funds," a document claiming to show bank account balances of millions of dollars available for victims to fund their HYIP investments, and that he would make these funds available if the victims found HYIPs acceptable to him. In return, Petitioner charged his victims a fee of up to 8% of the amount to be financed. Co-conspirator Chovanec provided Petitioner with documents purporting to be the "proofs of funds," and received a share of the scheme's proceeds in return.
Petitioner and his co-conspirators defrauded three victims: Wallace Roy, David Vo, and Christian Bernard. Petitioner promised these victims that he would hold their advance fees in an escrow account in the name of his company, Wellington Investment Holdings LLC ("Wellington"), until sending a "proof of funds" and funding their investment accounts. Instead, Petitioner deposited the victims' funds in his personal checking account and used them almost immediately to purchase luxury goods and pay off his co-conspirators. Wallace Roy received his "proof of funds" over a month after sending his advance fee to Petitioner, and after Petitioner had already looted Roy's funds for his personal use. The "proof of funds" Petitioner provided to Roy consisted of bank documents for an account at Citibank in Switzerland held by a company called Trescorp Limited. Petitioner sent David Vo the same Trescorp documents after looting Vo's advance fee to make a down payment on a home, but neither Vo's nor Trescorp's banks could verify the account. Petitioner then sent Vo bank documents for an account held by a company named WorldReach; he claimed that this was his company, but provided no documentary proof. Vo requested a corporate resolution from WorldReach that would give him access to the account, but Petitioner refused, and instead sent statements for an account in the name of Jean Baptiste Vivet. Finally, Petitioner gave Christian Bernard the documents for the Vivet account. From the three victims, the co-conspirators netted approximately $1.2 million; from this amount, Petitioner paid $50,000 to Sheppard and $50,000 to Gompper.
An undercover operation conducted by the FBI resulted in Petitioner's arrest and halted the fraudulent scheme. Following his arrest, Petitioner told FBI agents that he had no source of capital or "proofs of funds" other than co-conspirator Chovanec and a company he ran called Clarion Asset Incorporated; that he did not conduct due diligence on these "proofs of funds"; that the money in the Vivet account was not under his control, and he did not know whether the account existed or how much money it contained; and that none of his clients successfully used the "proofs of funds" to invest in HYIPs.
Petitioner was indicted on August 16, 2005. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial before this Court on June 7, 2006. On June 15, 2006, the jury found Petitioner guilty of all four counts of the indictment. After conviction, Petitioner filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 29(c), and in the alternative for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 33. On October 11, 2006, this Court denied Petitioner's motion. United States v. Brown, No. (S1) 05 Cr. 857 (LBS), 2006 WL 2930204 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2006). Petitioner was sentenced on February 8, 2007 to sixty months' imprisonment on Count One, to run concurrently with sentences of eighty-seven months' imprisonment on Counts Two through Four, followed by a three-year term of supervised release, along with the mandatory special assessment of $400 and asset forfeiture of $1,204,990. Petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on September 25, 2008, the Second Circuit affirmed Petitioner's conviction by summary order. United States v. Brown, 293 Fed. Appx. 826 (2d Cir. 2008). Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was denied on February 23, 2009. Brown v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1388 (2009). Petitioner filed the instant petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in this Court on March 17, 2010. He subsequently filed an Emergency Motion to Perpetuate Testimony on December 29, 2010; this Court denied the motion on June 27, 2011. On June 30, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion to Enforce Unopposed Discovery; this Court denied that motion on July 8, 2011.
A.Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim
In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the Supreme Court established a two part test to determine whether or not counsel's assistance is ineffective. 466 U.S. at 687. First, Petitioner must show that counsel's performance was deficient, which "requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed . . . by the Sixth Amendment." Id. "The proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms." Id. at 688. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, which requires that petitioner show "that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable." Id. If Petitioner cannot establish both Strickland prongs, his claim fails. "There is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697; see also Cousart v. Hammock, 745 F.2d 776, 778 (2d Cir. 1984).
Petitioner claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for three reasons: (1) he had a conflict of interest, (2) he failed to assert a defense of good faith, and (3) he called on Petitioner to concede guilt at trial.
i.Trial Counsel's Alleged Conflict of Interest
"A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to representation by conflict-free counsel." United States v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76, 90 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Three types of conflict of interest will result in ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) a per se conflict,
(2) "a potential conflict of interest that results in prejudice to the defendant," and (3) "an actual conflict of interest that adversely affects the attorney's performance." Armienti v. United States, 313 F.3d 807, 810 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Armienti II"). Per se conflicts occur in only "two limited circumstances: where defendant's counsel was unlicensed, and when the attorney has engaged in the ...