Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00499/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00499-2/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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD SHEPARD,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-499-WKW

 [WO]

ORDER

Petitioner Richard Shepard initiated this action with a Motion to Vacate, Set 

Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. # 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the 

resulting Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 20), the Magistrate Judge 

determined that the motion was due to be denied with prejudice. Mr. Shepard 

timely filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 21.) In his 

Objections, Mr. Shepard reasserts the arguments put forth in the initial motion. 

For the reasons below, the Objections are due to be overruled.

In his first objection, Mr. Shepard argues that his trial counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance. More specifically, he contends that counsel failed to

adequately challenge the sufficiency of evidence of his possession of narcotics and 

a firearm. A review of the record in this case reveals ample circumstantial 

evidence demonstrating Mr. Shepard’s constructive possession of both the 

Case 2:13-cv-00499-WKW-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 4
2

narcotics and the firearm. This evidence includes firearm and ammunition receipts 

in Mr. Shepard’s name, photographs of Mr. Shepard found in the room where law

enforcement located the narcotics and firearm, and the fact that law enforcement 

found the narcotics in a jacket hanging in a closet adjoining the same room. (See 

generally Doc. # 8-3.) Mr. Shepard fails to identify another plausible argument 

that his counsel should have raised with respect to the sufficiency of this evidence. 

(See Doc. # 21, at 1-3.) Since his objection on this point established neither 

deficiency of counsel nor resulting prejudice, he is entitled to no relief based on a 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 

668, 687-88, 694 (1984).

Mr. Shepard argues, secondly, that he received ineffective assistance 

because his trial counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that he 

possessed the firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. As indicated in 

the Report and Recommendation, the record contains sufficient evidence to 

establish that Mr. Shepard was in possession of a firearm within the meaning of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c). (Doc. # 20, at 11.) Mr. Shepard’s Objections, moreover, fail to 

establish that his counsel rendered deficient performance or that he was in any way 

prejudiced. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 694.

Third, Mr. Shepard reanimates his argument that trial counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress seized evidence. As 

Case 2:13-cv-00499-WKW-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 4
3

his trial counsel averred, however, no reasonable basis existed for raising such a 

motion. (Doc. # 7, at 3.) The Fourth Amendment arguments Mr. Shepard raises 

are meritless. Law enforcement officials seized the evidence in question pursuant 

to a warrant, which they obtained after conducting extensive police investigation. 

(Doc. # 7, at 3.) Since Mr. Shepard cannot establish a basis upon which a motion 

to suppress would have succeeded, he fails to show that his trial counsel’s 

performance fell below any “objective standard of reasonableness.” See Darden v. 

Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 184 (1986).

In his fourth objection, Mr. Shepard again argues that the assistance of his

trial counsel was ineffective due to counsel’s failure to object to the Government’s 

use of allegedly perjured testimony. With respect to Officer Hayes’s testimony, 

Mr. Shepard establishes neither that the statements were actually false nor that the 

Government knew of their alleged mendacity. See United States v. Bailey, 123 

F.3d 1381, 1395 (11th Cir. 1997). In addition, Mr. Shepard’s Objections fall short 

of establishing that Officer Edwards’s statements constituted willful falsehoods. 

See id. Mr. Shepard has not established that the assistance of his attorney was 

deficient or that he was prejudiced in any way. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 

694. As to his objection regarding alleged perjury, Mr. Shepard is entitled to no 

relief.

Case 2:13-cv-00499-WKW-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/06/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Fifth, and finally, Mr. Shepard raises an objection attacking the sufficiency 

of his appellate counsel’s assistance. He argues that his appellate counsel failed to 

properly raise on appeal an alleged violation of his right to testify. But as his 

appellate counsel noted in his affidavit, Mr. Shepard did not identify his desire to 

testify as an issue he wished to pursue on appeal. (Doc. # 4, at 1-2.) Further, his 

counsel asserted that this issue was properly preserved for appeal. (Doc. # 4, at 1-

2.) Mr. Shepard fails, as noted in the Report and Recommendation, to establish 

either that counsel’s performance was deficient or that he was in any way 

prejudiced by the allegedly deficient performance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 

687-88, 694.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 21) are OVERRULED. It is 

further ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 

(Doc. # 20) is ADOPTED, that the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence (Doc. # 1) is DENIED, and that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

A separate final judgment will be entered.

DONE this 6th day of October, 2015.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00499-WKW-SRW Document 24 Filed 10/06/15 Page 4 of 4