IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

: NO. 04-786

v. :

: CIVIL ACTION

AQUIL LOTT : NO. 08-4783

MEMORANDUM

Bartle, C.J. October 14, 2008

Aquil Lott has filed a timely habeas corpus motion

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Lott was convicted by a jury in this court of

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, possession of

a firearm during and in relation to a drug traffic offense, and

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); and 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The undersigned sentenced him to 180 months

in prison. On August 15, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed. 

Recently, the undersigned reduced his sentence to 103 months on

Counts I and III plus 60 consecutive months on Count II as a

result of the recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines

related to cocaine base offenses. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1; see also

Guidelines Manual Supplement to Appendix C §§ 706, 713 (Nov. 1,

2007). 

In his § 2255 motion, Lott advances as grounds for

relief that there was "insufficient evidence and plain error" at

his trial and also "ineffective assistance of counsel." He

Case 2:04-cr-00786-HB Document 71 Filed 10/14/08 Page 1 of 3
further explains the claim of "insufficient evidence and plain

error" as follows:

When the police officers arrested me I was in

possession of a weapon and narcotics. I

possessed the weapon only during the drug

sales and not in relation to the drug sales. 

I was shot a few times on separate [sic]

occasions and almost died, because of my

associates, who were murdered. So I brought

[sic] myself a weapon for self defense

reasons and that's all.

Def's § 2255 mot. at 6.

The evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to

have found Lott guilty on all counts. There was no plain error. 

Moreover, the facts asserted in his motion undermine any basis

for relief. Indeed, Lott concedes, as the jury found, that he

was in possession of a weapon and narcotics at the time of his

arrest. While justification or duress can be a defense to the

illegal possession of a weapon, the facts offered here, even if

true, are totally insufficient. See U.S. v. Paolello, 951 F.2d

537 (3d Cir. 1991).

Based on the facts alleged, no claim for ineffective

assistant of counsel has been set forth. His counsel's

performance was not deficient, and any deficiency clearly did not

prejudice Lott. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

In sum, there was no constitutional violation alleged. 

Accordingly, this court will deny the motion of Aquil Lott under

28 U.S.C. § 2255.

-2-

Case 2:04-cr-00786-HB Document 71 Filed 10/14/08 Page 2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

: NO. 04-786

v. :

: CIVIL ACTION

AQUIL LOTT : NO. 08-4783

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14 day of October, 2008, for the th

reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby

ORDERED that:

(1) the motion of Aquil Lott for relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED; and

(2) no certificate of appealability is issued.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Harvey Bartle III 

C.J.

Case 2:04-cr-00786-HB Document 71 Filed 10/14/08 Page 3 of 3