Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02361/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02361-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 All Document numbers are in CV 10-2361 unless otherwise indicated. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Robert Wilson Stewart, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 03-0061-PHX-HDM

CV-10-2361-PHX-JAT (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This case was referred to

Magistrate Judge Voss who, on June 28, 2011, filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R).

Doc. 7.1

 Movant filed objections to the R&R. Doc. 8 and Doc. 9. Because objections have

been filed, the Court will review the motion de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

As recounted in the R&R: 

On June 17, 2003 following a four day jury trial, the jury returned

guilty verdicts on all four counts alleged against Movant. Count 1 alleged

Movant threatened to murder United States District Judge Roslyn O.

Silver, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §115(a)(1)(B); Counts II and III alleged

Movant made material false statements to government agents in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2); and Count IV alleged that Movant solicited

another person to commit the murder. On November 20, 2003, Movant

was sentenced to 60 months in prison on each of Counts I, II and III, to run

Case 2:10-cv-02361-JAT Document 10 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

concurrently, and 232 month in prison on Count IV, to run consecutively

to the sentences for Count I, II and III. ...

On November 26, 2003, Movant filed a timely Notice of Appeal. On

August 23, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a reported

decision, affirmed the convictions on Counts I, II and IV, but reversed the

conviction on Count III and remanded for re-sentencing. Movant was resentenced on June 15, 2006, to concurrent 60 month prison terms on each

of Counts I and II, and 232 months on Count IV, again to run consecutively

to the sentences for Counts I and II. ...

Movant again filed a direct appeal in the Ninth Circuit. On October

7, 2009, in a Memorandum Decision, the Court affirmed the convictions

and sentences. ...

Doc. 7 at 1–2.

In his Petition, Movant raises three claims for relief. Doc. 1 at 1. The first is

ineffective assistance of counsel. The second and third both challenge the federal court’s

territorial jurisdiction over his offenses.

I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim

Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and its progeny, “[a]n ineffective

assistance claim has two components: a petitioner must show that counsel’s performance was

deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. To establish deficient performance,

a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard

of reasonableness.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 (2003) (internal citations and

quotations omitted). A deficient performance is one that is “outside the wide range of

professionally competent assistance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. In order to show prejudice,

Petitioner “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable

probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland,

466 U.S. at 694. Without specifics that cause the court to have such doubts, a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel must be denied. See James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir.

1994) (noting that petitioner needs to “identify what evidence counsel should have presented”

to show his innocence). 

Movant claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the fact that an audio

Case 2:10-cv-02361-JAT Document 10 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

recording that was played to the jury was different from the defense copy and was largely

unintelligible. On that audio recording, Movant solicited another person to kill a federal

judge. Movant claims that if the original had been played to the jury, it would have

demonstrated his innocence. 

The R&R views Movant’s complaint of ineffective assistance of counsel as nothing

more than an attempt to challenge his sentence and the ruling that has been made on the audio

recording. Doc. 7 at 3. The R&R notes that the Ninth Circuit ruled that the duplicate audio

recording submitted by the prosecution was properly admitted. Id. (citing U.S. v. Stewart, 420

F.3d 1007, 1021 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005)). Additionally, the R&R notes that because the

admissibility of the duplicate recording had already been decided by the Ninth Circuit,

Movant cannot re-litigate the issue simply by framing it as ineffective assistance of counsel.

Doc. 7 at 3.

The R&R notes that notwithstanding the Ninth Circuit’s determination that the audio

recording was admissible, Movant’s ineffective assistance claim would fail nonetheless. Doc.

7 at 4. Additionally, the R&R notes that Movant has not demonstrated that the result of the

proceedings would have been different even if his lawyer would have challenged the accuracy

of the duplicate recording played to the jury. Id. The only evidence that Movant has

presented for this court to conclude that there is a reasonable probability that the trial court

would have excluded the duplicate recording is his self-serving assertions that the original

would have shown his innocence. Having reviewed this issue de novo, the Court finds that

Movant did not have ineffective assistance of counsel because Movant has failed to

demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result

of the proceeding would have been different. 

In his objections, Movant raises an additional argument about the original recording.

Specifically, Movant claims that defense witnesses, if called, would have testified in his favor

concerning the information contained in the original audio recording. Doc. 8 at 4. Movant

also claims that the exculpatory value of the original recording cannot be determined because

Case 2:10-cv-02361-JAT Document 10 Filed 08/23/11 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

of counsel’s failure to subpoena possible witnesses. Id. at 3. However, a petitioner may not

use self-serving speculation to argue that a witness might have had favorable testimony.

Grisby v. Blodgett, 130 F.3d 365, 373 (9th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Ashimi, 932 F.2d 643, 650 (7th

Cir. 1991). And trial counsel is not required to interview every possible witness to be

effective. See generally Bobby v. Van Hook, 130 S. Ct. 13, 17–18 (2009). Once again,

Movant has failed to show a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would

have been different if not for counsel’s alleged unprofessional errors. Additionally, the Court

has found that Movant has not shown that the result of the proceeding would have been

different had counsel called the additional witnesses, nor has Movant shown prejudice due to

counsel’s failure to further object to the admission of the recording because the Court of

Appeals ruled that it was properly admitted. Therefore, the Court need not conduct the

evidentiary hearing requested by Movant to resolve any factual disputes. Accordingly, the

objections on this claim are overruled. 

II. Jurisdiction Claims

Movant and the R&R note that the issues in grounds two and three are closely linked

because they both challenge the federal court’s territorial jurisdiction over Movant’s offenses.

Doc. 7 at 4. Movant argues that because the federal prison where the offenses occurred is

situated on land not owned by the United States, the federal court was without jurisdiction to

hear the case and impose sentences. Doc. 1 at 3–4. 

“The federal court’s jurisdiction is not limited to federal crimes committed on federal

lands.” United States v. McCalla, 545 F.3d 750, 756 (9th Cir. 2008); see also United States

v. Adams, 581 F.2d 193, 200 (9th Cir. 1978) (federal jurisdiction over murders of postal

employees is not limited to those occurring on federal land). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, “[t]he

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the

States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” Federal crimes apply “equally

to everyone everywhere within the United States.” United States v. Begay, 42 F.3d 486, 499

(9th Cir. 1994). 

Case 2:10-cv-02361-JAT Document 10 Filed 08/23/11 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 5 -

Using the authority above, the R&R notes that Movant’s territorial jurisdiction claims

are without merit. Doc. 7 at 5. It is irrelevant to the court’s jurisdiction that the offenses may

have occurred on land not owned by the United States. Accordingly, relief on grounds two

and three will also be denied. 

In his objections, Movant argues that in the majority of cases, the location or place of

a crime determines the jurisdiction. Doc. 8 at 8. Movant also contends that the federal crimes

he has been convicted of are among those that must occur on federal lands to be tried in a

federal court. Id. In light of United States v. McCalla, 545 F.3d at 756, Movant’s position

is legally incorrect. Accordingly, the objection on this claim is overruled. 

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) is accepted, the

Objections (Doc. 8) and Supplemental Objection (Doc. 9) are overruled, the Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) is denied, and

the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing

Section 2255 Proceedings, in the event Movant files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of

a Certificate of Appealability because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. 

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02361-JAT Document 10 Filed 08/23/11 Page 5 of 5