The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge
Julie Barrera N/A Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE
Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Clifford Michael Oliver's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the "Motion"). Mot. (Dkt. 1). The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After considering the moving, opposing, and replying papers, and for the reasons stated below, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion.
Petitioner Clifford Michael Oliver ("Petitioner") pled guilty to one count of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for possessing more than thirty kilograms of phencyclidine ("PCP") with the intent to distribute the substance. No. 06-143 DOC (Dkt.
58). After sentencing, Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Ninth Circuit on the ground that the Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. No. 06-143 DOC (Dkt. 74). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court's ruling. No. 06-143 DOC (Dkt. 98).
On January 28, 2011, Petitioner filed the present motion to vacate, set aside, or correct federal sentence based on a number of allegations: (1) that his conviction arose as a result of violations of the Fourth Amendment; (2) that the Court permitted violations of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(c), as well as (3) violations of Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(a)(2); (4) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (5) that his due process rights were violated when the Court made internal notes correcting an officer's affidavit after the officer testified. Mot. (Dkt. 1)
The Court issued an order on August 15, 2011, in which the Court denied Petitioner's Motion except to the extent that his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel required further inquiry. Order (Dkt. 4) at 5. Petitioner avers in his Motion that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to discuss with him the implications of his "career offender status" under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Mot. (Dkt. 1) at 14. The Court ruled that resolution of this claim would require limited disclosure of attorney-client privileged information. Order (Dkt. 4) at 4.To that end, the Court found a limited waiver ...