Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_07-cv-01062/USCOURTS-almd-1_07-cv-01062-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MATTHEW OKONKWO, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:07cv1062-MHT

) (WO) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

Based on the court’s review of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, the government’s

answer, and the supporting and opposing submissions filed in this case, the court concludes

that the petitioner, Matthew Okonkwo, raises the following grounds for relief:

The petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel

for the following reasons:

1. Trial counsel failed to prepare adequately for

trial, failed to investigate the petitioner’s case,

and failed to consult with him about the facts of

his case, potential witnesses, and potential

defenses.

2. Trial counsel failed to present evidence in the

petitioner’s defense and failed to impeach the

government witnesses who lied under oath and

testified falsely against the petitioner. Appellate

counsel also failed to present this issue.

3. Trial counsel failed to investigate, and thus had

no understanding of, the manner of operation of

the petitioner’s tax preparation business.

Case 1:07-cv-01062-MHT-CSC Document 30 Filed 12/07/09 Page 1 of 3
2

4. Trial counsel failed to adequately advise the

petitioner to consider the government’s plea

offer.

5. Trial counsel failed to investigate and present a

statute of limitations defense.

6. Trial counsel was not present during the

presentence interview with the probation officer.

7. Trial counsel failed to investigate and present

mitigating evidence at sentencing. 

8. Trial counsel failed to object to the restitution

order. 

9. The cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors

prejudiced the petitioner’s defense. 

10. Appellate counsel filed a brief containing an

irrelevant issue rather than issues the petitioner

discussed with counsel and which would have

yielded a favorable result.

Before further action, the court concludes it is appropriate to ensure that it has

identified all issues that the petitioner has raised. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that on or before December 17, 2009, the petitioner shall identify any

issue or issues not listed above that were raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion or

supporting submissions by specific reference to the page of the motion or supporting

submission where the issue is raised.

Thisis not an opportunity to raise new issues. If the petitioner desires to raise new

Case 1:07-cv-01062-MHT-CSC Document 30 Filed 12/07/09 Page 2 of 3
3

issues, he must do so by a separate motion to amend.

Done this 7 day of December, 2009. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01062-MHT-CSC Document 30 Filed 12/07/09 Page 3 of 3