Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180509_0001349.MPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:11:39+00:00

Document:
Presently before this Court is Defendant Ernest Parker's Motion to Correct Sentence (Doc. 129) under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This Motion will be denied because the Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence and the denial of the Motion does not result in a miscarriage of justice.
On August 25, 2009, a Grand Jury charged Defendant Ernest Parker in a five-Count Indictment. (Doc. 1.) Years later, on January 6, 2011, the Defendant pled guilty to Count Three of the Indictment, which charged him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Doc. 90.) Specifically, this Count charged the Defendant with “knowingly us[ing], carr[ying], brandish[ing], and discharg[ing] a firearm . . . during and in retaliation to, and in furtherance of a crime of violence. (Id.) The predicate “crime of violence” was attempted kidnaping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(d).
The district court is given discretion in determining whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on a prisoner's motion under § 2255. See Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Forte, 865 F.2d 59, 62 (3d Cir. 1989). In exercising that discretion, the Court must decide whether the petitioner's claims, if proven, would entitle petitioner to relief and then consider whether an evidentiary hearing is needed to determine the truth of the allegations. See Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Weatherwax, 20 F.3d 572, 574 (3d. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, a district court may summarily dismiss a motion brought under § 2255 without a hearing where the “motion, files, and records, ‘show conclusively that the movant is not entitled to relief.'” United States v. Nahodil, 36 F.3d 323, 326 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 41-42 (3d Cir. 1992)); see also Forte, 865 F.2d at 62.

References: § 2255
 § 924
 § 1201
 § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 v.