Newsome v. United States, 1:20-cv-01050-STA-jay. (2020)
Court: District Court, W.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20200311f82
Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 10, 2020
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES TO RESPOND TO 2255 PETITION S. THOMAS ANDERSON , Chief District Judge . On March 4, 2020, Petitioner Robert Newsome filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (the "Petition"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. (ECF No. 1.) The Petition is before the Court for preliminary review. Newsome asserts that his defense attorney provided ineffective assistance in two respects. He alleges in Claim 1 that counsel had a conflict of interest at th
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES TO RESPOND TO 2255 PETITION S. THOMAS ANDERSON , Chief District Judge . On March 4, 2020, Petitioner Robert Newsome filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (the "Petition"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. (ECF No. 1.) The Petition is before the Court for preliminary review. Newsome asserts that his defense attorney provided ineffective assistance in two respects. He alleges in Claim 1 that counsel had a conflict of interest at the..
More
ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES TO RESPOND TO § 2255 PETITION
S. THOMAS ANDERSON, Chief District Judge.
On March 4, 2020, Petitioner Robert Newsome filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (the "Petition"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 1.) The Petition is before the Court for preliminary review.
Newsome asserts that his defense attorney provided ineffective assistance in two respects. He alleges in Claim 1 that counsel had a conflict of interest at the time he advised Petitioner to accept the Government's plea offer. (Id. at 4.) He asserts in Claim 2 that counsel failed at the plea stage to anticipate the Sixth Circuit's decision in United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (per curiam). (Id.)
Respondent United States of America is ORDERED to file a response to the Petition within twenty-eight days from the date of this order. See Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts ("Habeas Rules"), Rule 5(a).
Petitioner may, if he chooses, submit a reply to Respondent's answer or response within twenty-eight days of service. See Habeas Rule 5(d). Petitioner may request an extension of time to reply by filing a motion on or before the due date of his reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
