alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Walter BERRY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-2042.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 3, 2003.1

Decided Jan. 7, 2003.

*210Before EASTERBROOK, DIANE P. WOOD, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

1

. After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary, and the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

ORDER

This case has had a long, and some might accurately suggest tortured, history. We see no reason to recount that history here, other than to point the interested reader to three prior published opinions. *See United States v. Berry,*64 F.3d 305 (7th Cir.1995); *United States v. Berry,*92 F.3d 597 (7th Cir.1996); *United States v. Berry,*133 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir.1998).

Today, on his fourth visit here, Walter Berry, Jr. argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to call a witness, Tyrone Ashford, to testify at his sentencing hearing. That claim was rejected by the district court when Berry presented it in a § 2255 motion. We affirm the district court’s judgment denying relief.

Upon our review of the record, we have little difficulty concluding that Berry has failed to meet his burden of establishing that his trial counsel’s failure to call Ash-ford to testify at the sentencing hearing fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. His counsel, Paul Christenson, reasoned that Ashford, if called, would simply repeat (this time under oath) his statements to police about the level of Berry’s drug dealing and, considering that, it would be better to argue that Ashford’s out-of-court statements were unreliable and thus unworthy of belief. This is not an unreasonable conclusion. Further, there has been no showing to date that Ashford’s live testimony would have been favorable to Berry, and without knowing precisely what Ashford would say, this § 2255 motion asks us to buy a pig in a poke. We are not inclined to make that purchase.

AFFIRMED.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 191

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to terminate taxpayer financing

of presidential election campaigns.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. STUMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to terminate

taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF TAXPAYER FINANCING OF

4 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

5 (a) TERMINATION OF DESIGNATION OF INCOME TAX

6 PAYMENTS.—Section 6096 of the Internal Revenue Code

7 of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following

8 new subsection:

9 ‘‘(d) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to

10 taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.’’
2

•HR 191 IH

1 (b) TERMINATION OF FUND AND ACCOUNT.—

2 (1) TERMINATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

3 CAMPAIGN FUND.—

4 (A) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 95 of subtitle

5 H of such Code is amended by adding at the

6 end the following new section:

7 ‘‘SEC. 9014. TERMINATION.

8 The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with

9 respect to any presidential election (or any presidential

10 nominating convention) after December 31, 2000, or to

11 any candidate in such an election.’’

12 (B) TRANSFER OF EXCESS FUNDS TO GEN13 ERAL FUND.—Section 9006 of such Code is

14 amended by adding at the end the following

15 new subsection:

16 ‘‘(d) TRANSFER OF FUNDS REMAINING AFTER

17 2000.—The Secretary shall transfer all amounts in the

18 fund after December 31, 2000, to the general fund of the

19 Treasury.’’

20 (2) TERMINATION OF ACCOUNT.—Chapter 96

21 of subtitle H of such Code is amended by adding at

22 the end the following new section:
3

•HR 191 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 9043. TERMINATION.

2 The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any

3 candidate with respect to any presidential election after

4 December 31, 2000.’’

5 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—

6 (1) The table of sections for chapter 95 of sub7 title H of such Code is amended by adding at the

8 end the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 9014. Termination.’’

9 (2) The table of sections for chapter 96 of sub10 title H of such Code is amended by adding at the

11 end the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 9043. Termination.’’

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mark and Linda Lessard

v. Civil No. 06-cv-423-JD

Wilton-Lyndeborough Cooperative

School District

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Mark and Linda Lessard seek judicial review under the

Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA") of the

decision of the New Hampshire Department of Education that

approved the Individual Education Plan ("IEP") and educational

placement of the Lessards' daughter, S.L., by the WiltonLyndeborough Cooperative School District ("District"). The

Lessards' claims arise from their daughter's 2005-2006 school

year. The parties have filed their decision memoranda. 

Last week, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's

decision in a separate case brought by the Lessards against the

District. See Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Cooperative School

District, --- F.3d ---, 2008 WL 484042 (1st Cir. Feb. 25, 2008). 

In that case, the Lessards challenged the District's IEP and

placement for S.L. for the 2004-2005 school year, arguing that

the IEP was incomplete at the beginning of the school year, that

the late IEP deprived S.L. of her right to a free and appropriate

public education, and that the IEP did not adequately address

S.L.'s needs in specific areas. The First Circuit ruled that any

delay in the IEP was the Lessards' fault and that they

misunderstood the standard and requirements imposed by the IDEA.

Case 1:06-cv-00423-JD Document 38 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The Lessards raise the same or similar claims here based on

the theories they relied on previously. The First Circuit's

recent decision establishes the governing standard, which will

likely strengthen or undermine at least some of the parties'

claims, theories, and arguments presented in the decision

memoranda. As no decision has issued in this case, before the

court begins the review process, it would be appropriate for the

parties to review their positions in light of the First Circuit's

decision in Lessard.

Conclusion

After carefully reviewing their claims, theories, and

arguments as presented in their decision memorandum, the Lessards

shall either file a voluntary dismissal of their case, if that is

appropriate, or file a supplemental memorandum that addresses

their claims in light of the decision in Lessard. The Lessards

shall make their filing on or before March 17, 2008. The

District shall file its response within fifteen (15) days of the

date of the Lessards' filing.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 3, 2008

cc: Katherine W. Bubar, Esquire

Jennifer A. Eber, Esquire

Eric R. Herlan, Esquire

Richard L. O'Meara, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00423-JD Document 38 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-194-01-JD

Lester Caron

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no. 5) filed by defendant is

granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10 days. The court finds that the

ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

December 8, 2006

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Peter Papps, Esq.

U. S. Probation

U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00194-JD Document 6 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Greg Peterson

v. Case No. 08-cv-189-SM

United States Social Security 

Administration, Commissioner 

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated June 12, 2009, no objection having been filed, for the reasons set

forth therein. The Plaintiff's Motion for Order Reversing Decision of Commissioner

(document number 7) is denied. Defendant's Motion for Order Affirming Decision

of Commissioner (document number 9) is granted. The clerks shall enter judgment

and close the case. 

SO ORDERED.

July 7, 2009 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Case 1:08-cv-00189-SM Document 12 Filed 07/07/09 Page 1 of 2
cc: Raymond J. Kelly, Esq.

T. David Plourde, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00189-SM Document 12 Filed 07/07/09 Page 2 of 2
B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm real estate

Volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1997...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.6 1.1 1.5 .6 .9

1998...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999...... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002...... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

2004...... .7 .3 .4 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

2005...... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6

2006...... .7 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .5

2007...... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .7 .7 .1 .5

1999: Q1... 1.1 .5 .6 .3 .3 3.6 1.6 2.0 .9 1.0

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .8 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .8 1.5 .7 .8

 Q4... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .3 .3 3.2 1.3 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .3 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.1 .7 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001: Q1... 1.1 .6 .5 .1 .4 3.2 1.7 1.4 .4 1.1

 Q2... .9 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.7 1.0 1.7 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .4 2.5 .9 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q4... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .2 .4 3.3 1.6 1.7 .5 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.6 1.0 1.6 .4 1.1

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.4 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q4... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .1 .5 3.2 1.6 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .7 .2 .5 2.6 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.3 .7 1.5 .3 1.2

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

2004: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.5 1.1 1.4 .3 1.1

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.9 .7 1.2 .3 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

2005: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 1.0 1.0 .2 .8

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7

 Q4... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 .9 .9 .2 .6

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .7 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .5

2007: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.6 .9 .7 .2 .5

 Q2... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.5 .7 .8 .2 .6

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .7 .7 .1 .5

2008: Q1... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .3 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6

 Note. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

24
23

B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of total non-real-estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1996...... 95 16 27 24 30 .240 .039 .070 .058 .071

1997...... 93 6 19 19 50 .230 .014 .049 .045 .112

1998...... 87 4 15 24 45 .198 .008 .036 .051 .095

1999...... 126 18 37 35 36 .280 .040 .086 .078 .080

2000...... 108 11 17 34 45 .259 .027 .041 .075 .098

2001...... 308 67 53 140 48 .656 .142 .118 .294 .101

2002...... 221 40 50 58 73 .471 .085 .114 .124 .157

2003...... 175 34 35 48 58 .382 .074 .080 .108 .128

2004...... 129 28 17 46 38 .284 .062 .039 .099 .081

2005...... 59 8 16 12 24 .124 .017 .035 .026 .048

2006...... 73 9 7 23 34 .146 .018 .015 .045 .064

2007...... n.a. 8 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. .014 n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude

foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks that

are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22180]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11425]


Louisiana Disaster Number LA-00020

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Louisiana 
(FEMA-1786-DR), dated 09/02/2008.
    Incident: Hurricane Gustav.
    Incident Period: 09/01/2008 through 09/11/2008.
    Effective Date: 09/11/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/03/2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Louisiana, dated 09/02/2008, is hereby amended to establish the 
incident period for this disaster as beginning 09/01/2008 and 
continuing through 09/11/2008.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-22180 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### In the Matter of Alethea Smalls, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 377]

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), dated November 19, 2003, which terminated petitioner’s public housing tenancy for nondesirability and breach of Tenant Rules and Regulations, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CFLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Ronald A. Zweibel, J.], entered October 13, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

The hearing officer’s findings that petitioner assaulted a *479neighbor and violated an order of protection by harassing a neighbor’s daughter are supported by substantial evidence *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 179-182 [1978]) and warrant respondent’s determination of nondesirability.

There is no indication that petitioner was, or appeared to be, unable to understand or respond appropriately to the charges at the hearing, or incapable of rational thought and coherent communication so as to require appointment of a representative so as to afford her a meaningful opportunity to be heard *(compare Matter of Padilla v Martinez,*300 AD2d 96 [2002]). Petitioner exhibited appropriate behavior at the proceeding and the hearing officer developed a full and fair record and reasonably accommodated petitioner in light of her pro se status. While a letter from petitioner’s doctor stated that petitioner would benefit from a calm, nonhostile environment, the doctor did not state that petitioner’s anxiety and insomnia, or the medication she was taking, interfered with her ability to function generally or defend herself against the administrative charges. Further, respondent’s social services department had already evaluated petitioner in response to her report of conflicts with other residents and staff, and concluded that she “exhibits no signs of mental illness, she was lucid, rational and appropriate.”

Nor did the hearing officer abuse his discretion in denying an adjournment. Petitioner had approximately four months to secure counsel before the first hearing session. When the hearing continued, petitioner had an additional four weeks to secure representation. Thus, petitioner had more than sufficient time to secure counsel.

The penalty of termination does not shock the conscience *(see Matter of Featherstone v Franco,*95 NY2d 550 [2000]) and is not “so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 237 [1974]; *Matter of Glover v Finkel,*278 AD2d 14 [2000]). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FORM
     10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED JULY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
     BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                             397
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                       259
<INVENTORY>                                      1,018
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,238
<PP&E>                                           1,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                     206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,741
<BONDS>                                            495
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,200
<OTHER-SE>                                        (343)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,854
<SALES>                                          3,933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,933
<CGS>                                            2,989
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  52
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (113)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (133)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (133)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                            8,920,792
<SECURITIES>                     14,256,777
<RECEIVABLES>                     5,252,993
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                       8,272,093
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 38,700,408
<PP&E>                            2,533,020
<DEPRECIATION>                    1,259,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   42,217,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             7,079,437
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             98,057
<OTHER-SE>                       35,040,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     42,217,497
<SALES>                          19,146,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 19,146,251
<CGS>                             7,887,821
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    15,216,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   4,606,448
<INCOME-TAX>                      1,379,723
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               3,226,725
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      3,226,725
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .31

        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joel Drown

v. Civil No. 07-202-JD

United States of America

O R D E R

This is a petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

On May 31, 2006, the petitioner entered a plea of guilty,

pursuant to a plea agreement, to a one-count indictment charging

him with attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 United States

Code, Section 2113(a). Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C)

the parties agreed that the base offense level for this offense

would be 20 and that there would be a two point increase for

taking the property of a financial institution. The court

accepted these binding stipulations and imposed a sentence of 37

months in prison followed by a two-year term of supervised

release.

The petition and accompanying memorandum are rambling and at

times border on being incoherent. The petitioner appears to

contest the validity of the indictment, the statute under which

he was convicted, and the statutes under which he has been

sentenced. The petitioner also suggests that his counsel was

Case 1:07-cv-00202-JD Document 2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 2

Drown v. USA Doc. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
2

ineffective. However, all of these allegations are too vague and

unsubstantiated to be considered viable.

The court finds that the sentence imposed in this case did

not violate the Constitution or laws of the United States, that

the court had jurisdiction to impose the sentence, that the

sentence was not in excess of the maximum authorized by law, and

that the sentence is not otherwise subject to collateral attack. 

Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

July 13, 2007

cc: Joel Drown, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00202-JD Document 2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 2 of 2