The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert H. Whaley United States District Court
ORDER DIRECTING THE GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Ct. Rec. 153).
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of Conspiracy to Travel for the Purpose of Engaging in Illicit Sexual Act with a Minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e) and Travel for the Purpose of Engaging in Sexual Act with a Minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Defendant was sentenced to 360 months imprisonment, life term of supervised release and $200 special assessment. Defendant appealed his verdict and sentence. On December 10, 2007, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner may move the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his or her sentence on the grounds that (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence; or (3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law. "Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States Attorney." § 2255. Pursuant to Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Proceedings in the United States District Courts under Section 2255, the Court may, sua sponte, dismiss the motion if "it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of the prior proceeding that the movant is not entitled to relief."
In his petition, Defendant asserts seven grounds for relief:
(1) Defendant's counsel was ineffective when he failed to consult or hire experts for recording analysis, entrapment defense, and psychiatric opinion at sentencing;
(2) Defendant's counsel was ineffective when he failed to challenge the indictment based on FBI misconduct;
(3) Defendant was convicted through the use of a manufactured jurisdiction;
(4) Defendant's counsel was ineffective when he failed to explore or pursue entrapment defense;
(5) Defendant's counsel was ineffective when he failed to move for discovery in a timely manner for Brady material that was ...