Source: http://md.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180305_0000345.DMD.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 21:11:57+00:00

Document:
Following an eight-day trial, m October of 2014, a jury found the pro se Petitioner Bruce Winston ("Petitioner" or "Winston") guilty of one count of Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (ECF Nos. 1, 201.) This Court sentenced Winston to the mandatory minimum sentence of one-hundred twenty (120) months imprisonment (ECF No. 241 at 70), which was below the advisory guideline range of 151 to 188 months. Winston subsequently appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed this Court's judgement. United States v. Winston, 651 Fed.App'x. 237 (4th Cir. 2016).
Currently pending before this Court is the Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 254.) For the following reasons, Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 254) is DENIED.
This Court recognizes that Petitioner is pro se and has accorded his pleadings liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a prisoner in custody may seek to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence on four grounds: (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence, (3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to a collateral attack. Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Further, "an error of law does not provide a basis for collateral attack unless the claimed error constituted 'a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice."' United Stales v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979) (quoting Hill, 368 U.S. at 428).
In his Motion to Vacate, Winston argues that his sentence should be vacated for three reasons. First, Winston alleges that jury members spoke with an "Investigator" in a restroom while on break during his trial. In analyzing this claim, this Court notes that the Fourth Circuit uses a "three-step process for analyzing allegations of extrajudicial juror contact" in criminal cases. United States v. Cheek, 94 F.3d 136, 141 (4th Cir. 1996). The first step requires the moving party to "introduc[e] competent evidence that the extrajudicial communications or contacts were more than innocuous interventions." Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). If the moving party meets the first step, the second step presumes that the communications were prejudicial. Id. (citing Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954)). Finally, the third step shifts the burden to the non-moving party to prove that the communications were not prejudicial. Id. (citations omitted). In the present case, Winston not only fails to proffer sufficient evidence showing that such conversations took place, but also fails to claim that such discussions were not innocuous. Therefore, Winston's first claim that jurors were influenced by extrajudicial communications is without merit.
Second, Winston contends that the Assistant Federal Public Defender (AFPD) who was initially appointed to represent him was "[r]emoved two weeks before trial, [and Winston] was given two young men that had never been to trial." (ECF No. 254 at 4.) This statement is incorrect. Throughout this case Winston was represented by the Office of the Federal Public Defender of Maryland. Both attorneys who represented Winston at trial had previously represented defendants before this Court. See, e.g., United States v. Graham, RDB-11-94; United States v. Currie, RDB-10-532; United States v. Romero, GLR-11-0527. Therefore, this claim is without merit.

References: § 846
 § 841
 v. 
 § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.