Source: http://news.lawreader.com/?p=7202
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:32:14+00:00

Document:
The United States objects to William J. Gallion’s motion for a certificate of appealability because he has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A certificate of appealability is a jurisdictional prerequisite to this Court’s review. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). To make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” Gallion must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate” whether “the petition should have been resolved [by the district court] in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).
Indictment at 10,837; R. 820: Verdict at 14,216.] The district court sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison and entered a restitution award of $127,678,834.05. [R. 955: Judgment at 16,696, 16,699.] This Court affirmed Gallion’s conviction. United States v. Cunningham, 679 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2012). The Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. Gallion v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 772 (2012).
First, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. In and of themselves (i.e., apart from surrounding comments or accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.
[R. 1433: Opinion and Order at 25,545 (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)).] Gallion argues that bias is shown because of an alleged ex parte communication with Jane Graham, counsel for the KBA. He presumes that such a meeting took place for the improper purpose of limiting the availability of impeachment evidence for Chesley and Bamberger.
MR. ALMAND: If it please the Court, I would just like to finish my record. I understand that the Court has ruled, but if I could just put this on the record.
The fact that one of the witnesses, Mr. Chesley, we know of the investigation on him because we have been contacted directly by the Bar asking us to provide information on him. So that is a matter that’s already been disclosed to us. So that’s no secret as far as that is concerned. So we are fully aware of that, which means that that being the case, we certainly as to him should have the ability to inquire into that.
And Judge, I would also ask, has there been – I’m not aware of how the courts work in Kentucky in regards to communication with judges by the Bar Association, and I didn’t know whether there had been any communications with the Court or not directly concerning this matter that we’re not aware of, but if there were, I would just ask that question. And I’m assuming there’s not, but I just ask.
THE COURT: You’ve asked the question.
THE COURT: It doesn’t mean I have to answer it.
Almand’s questions to the court had nothing to do with Gosnell or Graham. Instead, Almand was attempting to find out if the KBA had contacted Judge Reeves for the purpose of obtaining information about Chesley. Thus, Gallion’s assertion that Graham had potentially made an ex-parte communication with the court relating to Gosnell and Graham’s motion for a protective order lacks any support in the record. Nevertheless, Gallion argues he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of questioning Graham. See Gallion’s Motion at 25-26. A hearing is not necessary, however, when a petitioner’s claims “‘cannot be accepted as true because they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or [are] conclusions rather than statements of fact.’” Valentine v. United States, 488 F.3d 325, 333 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Arredondo v. United States, 178 F.3d 778, 782 (6th Cir. 1999)).
disclosure only where, as here, a law enforcement agency is conducting an investigation into a criminal matter relating to the target and the information is believed to be essential to that investigation. Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.150(4)(c).
For the first time, Gallion now accuses the government of failing to provide a summary of the interview of David Schaefer, an attorney for American Home Products, which Gallion alleges is exculpatory. See Gallion’s Motion at 27. Nowhere in his original § 2255 petition, his objections, or his motion to recuse does he mention Schaefer in the context of this argument. [See R. 1406: Motion at 24,882; R. 1422: Objections at 25,030; R. 1427: Motion to Recuse at 25,496.] Because he failed to raise this claim either on direct appeal or in his § 2255 motion, the Court should ignore his allegation. See Frady, 456 U.S. at 164 (holding that issues not raised on direct appeal are waived); Hewlett v. United States, No. 91-5832, 1991 WL 253308, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 26, 1991) (holding that claims not raised in prior § 2255 motion “not reviewable”).
a charitable fund to receive any left over monies as part of the settlement. Although he could not remember exactly which attorneys participated in this discussion, Schaefer believed that Pierce Hamblin, David Helmers, Shirley Cunningham, William Gallion and Stanley Chesley were present, along with Schaefer’s two co-counsel.
[R. 1406: Motion, Exhibit A at 24,918-19.] Schaefer also stated that in his experience he had never heard of a charitable fund being established by plaintiffs’ attorneys. [Id. at 24,919.] Schaefer’s trial testimony does not contradict his interview summary statements. Schafer testified that although he was present at times during the mediation, he was not involved in the negotiations. [R. 1171: David Schaefer, TR (Vol. 16-A) at 21,421, 21,431.] At best, he recalled that Chesley, among others, were present. [Id. at 21,424-25.] Thus, Gallion’s claim that the interview “contradicts Judge Reeves[‘s] interpretation of the Settlement Documents and the ruling that denied the defense right to offer Expert Testimony,” Gallion’s Motion at 27, fails.
Gallion’s argument that the government knowingly used perjured testimony to convict him, see Gallion’s Motion at 38, is yet another argument raised for the first time in his motion for a certificate of appealability. Again, such a claim cannot support a certificate of appealability. See Frady, 456 U.S. at 164 (holding that issues not raised on direct appeal are waived); Hewlett, 1991 WL 253308, at *1 (holding that claims not raised in prior § 2255 motion “not reviewable”). Gallion fails to support his claim that government presented perjured testimony.
To prevail on his claim, Gallion must demonstrate a constitutional error that was of such a magnitude that it had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury’s verdict. Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733, 736 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993)). Gallion would be entitled to relief only by showing “a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346 (1974). His argument that disbarment orders were admitted into evidence by the government, see Gallion’s motion at 42-43, cannot succeed because this Court rejected this argument on direct appeal. See Cunningham, 679 F.3d. at 383-84 (finding that any error would have been harmless in light of overwhelming and independently-supported evidence of guilty).
Chesely, Bamberger, and Helmers. He further complains that he was wrongfully denied an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Gallion’s Motion at 43-44. Again, each of Gallion’s arguments fail.
Almand’s illness. [R. 1173: Court, TR (Vol. 19) at 21,625.] During that consultation, Almand conversed intelligently about the case and stated that he wished to continue as Gallion’s counsel. Gallion agreed. Coffey requested a short continuance to give Gallion the opportunity to decide how he wished to proceed. [R. 1173: Colloquy, TR (Vol. 19) at 21,628.] This Court found no error with the procedure employed by the Judge Reeves. Cunningham, 679 F.3d at 385-86.
THE COURT: To this point, Mr. Almand has provided very effective and very zealous advocacy on behalf of Mr. Gallion. I don’t think anyone could argue to the contrary on that, sir.
[THE GOVERNMENT]: We do not certainly disagree with that.
THE COURT: I want to make sure that he’s able to do that as the case proceeds. I don’t want Mr. Gallion to be prejudiced by a medical condition that obviously is not the choosing of Mr. Almand. It is what it is. We’re faced with the situation that we’re faced with.
[R. 1004: Colloquy, TR (Vol. 20-B) at 17,781].
The record establishes that Gallion was aware of Mr. Almand’s health problems but preferred that Almand continue as his attorney. The Court thoroughly considered Mr. Almand’s advocacy and granted several continuances to ensure that Almand could effectively represent Gallion. When appointed for this very purpose, Coffey agreed that Almand could competently represent Gallion. In short, Gallion has not shown that his counsel’s performance was deficient because of his health condition.

References: § 2253
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 v.