JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.
On May 22, 2014, finding good cause, this Court granted Petitioner, Henry Anekwu's ("Petitioner's") Motion seeking an extension to file his § 2255 Motion, and Ordered him to file his brief on or before July 1, 2014. (ECf. Doc. 4) That Order was received on May 28, 2014. For the reasons shown, unanticipated by Petitioner when he filed the first Motion for Extension, Petitioner seeks a second extension until September 30, 2014.
As stated in the previous motion for extension, access to Adams County Correctional Center's law library is strictly on an invitation only basis. Therefore, immediately upon receipt of the Court's Order granting the extension — proving that an active matter related to his criminal case is pending — Petitioner requested access to the law library.
Petitioner was granted access on June 6, 2014, for 4 hours. On that day, he sent a letter to the Court requesting a copy of the docket sheet and a letter to defense counsel requesting his case files and documents.
Subsequently, Petitioner has been provided access on three other occasions totaling thirteen hours to prepare and file the brief. Notwithstanding, the lack of and/or sparse information and documents, Petitioner has been unable to adequately research, prepare, type, edit, complete, print and mail any appropriate brief by July 1, 2014. Petitioner, however, was able to shortlist the issues that require briefing. Issues Petitioner anticipates to brief, based on the information in his possession and/or his recollection, includes, but are not limited to:
1. Whether counsel was prejudicially deficient not explain to Petitioner the advantages and disadvantages of pleading guilty vis a vis going to trial in light of the evidence against him and impediments created to prepare for trial, warranting an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case?
2. Whether counsel was prejudicially deficient not to litigate in an effective manner matters related to constructively amending the indictment, warranting an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case?
3. Whether counsel was prejudicially deficient not to litigate in an effective manner matters related to the admission of evidence of foreign documents, by means of written affidavit, in violation of the Confrontation Clause, warranting an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case?
4. Whether counsel was prejudicially deficient not to litigate in an effective manner matters related to impediments in investigating witnesses in order to prepare for trial, warranting an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case?
5. Whether counsel was prejudicially deficient not to litigate in an effective manner matters related to the admission in evidence of a chart summarizing bank records, where the underlying records also were admitted, violated Federal Rules of Evidence 1006 and 403, warranting an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case?
6. Whether counsel was prejudicially deficient not to litigate in an effective manner matters related to testimony about the lengths to which the Government went to prosecute this case and the prosecutor's comments thereon, warranting an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case?
7. Whether counsel was prejudicially deficient not to litigate in an effective manner matters related to the district court's refusal to voir dire the jury venire on potential racial and ethnic biases, warranting an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case?
8. Whether counsel was prejudicially deficient not to litigate in an effective manner matters related to the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on the suspect credibility of a testifying informant, warranting an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case?
9. Whether counsel was prejudicially deficient not to litigate in an effective manner matters related to the district court's failure to adequately respond to a question posed by the jury during deliberations, warranting an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case?
10. Whether counsel was deficient not to litigate in an effective manner matters related to these and other trial errors cumulatively warranting a finding of prejudice even if none warranting a finding of prejudice independently, warranting an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case?
11. Whether counsel was prejudicially deficient not to litigate in an effective manner matters related to the district court's unreasonable sentence when it (1) stated that the defendant's inability to pay restitution was an aggravating factor, and (2) stated that two different advisory guideline ranges both were sufficient to serve the purpose of sentencing, and then imposed a sentence above the lower range, warranting an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case?
On June 19, 2014, Petitioner received a response from the Clerk's office. The Deputy Clerk stated that in order to receive a copy of the docket sheet Petitioner would have to pay $7.50 to photocopy 15 pages (see attached). Promptly, Petitioner applied for a check to be issued. That check was issued by the prison on June 23, 2014 and mailed to the Court on June 25, 2014. (see attached).
It is understood that, in § 2255 litigation, the United States Attorney's Office, in this district, normally request defense counsel to respond to interrogatories. Thus, review of counsel's notes, work-product, and other documents in counsel's possession, before the § 2255 Motion is filed, is critical to not only brief the issues, but, more importantly, to assess the non-frivolity of those issues. As of this filing, Petitioner has not received any information from defense counsel as to the status of his request. (see attached).
The Supreme Court, for example, has declared that "the right to procedural due process is `absolute' in the sense that it does not depend upon the merits of a claimant's substantive assertions." Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266 (1978) accord, Hazie v. Crofoot, 727 F.3d 983, 999, fn.6 (9
WHEREFORE, in the interests of justice, Petitioner respectfully requests a further extension of time to file his Motion seeking an Order vacating, setting aside and/or correcting the conviction or sentence in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on or before September 30, 2014.
