Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19860505_0000218.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-30 14:41:24
Document Index: 375438561

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 3161', '§ 2255', '§ 3161', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 841', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

| WORD v. UNITED STATES
WORD v. UNITED STATES
JERRY WORD, Petitioner,
POLLACK, Senior District Judge: This is Jerry Word's fourth pro se motion to vacate his sentence - fifth, if counting his motion to reconsider a decision on one of his prior § 2255 motions - under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1982). Because Word knew, years earlier, of the existence of the facts giving rise to his present claim, and thus could have brought these claims in one of his prior § 2255 motions, see Rule 9(b)(successive motions), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255 (1982), and because his contentions, even were they properly raised for the first time on this motion, are totally frivolous, Word's motion will be denied. At trial, on direct appeal from his conviction, and in his initial pro se § 2255 motion, Word had claimed that the government took too long in bringing him to trial, allegedly in violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1) (1982). In his more recent pro se § 2255 motions, Word has claimed that the government brought him to trial too quickly, prejudicing his ability to prepare adequately for trial, allegedly in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(2) (1982). Now, on this latest pro se § 2255 motion, Word is once again claiming that the government took too long in bringing him to trial. To support his current motion, Word accuses the government, his trial counsel, and this Court of conspiring to forge documents in the record, thereby misdirecting Word's arguments on his speedy trial act claim before the Second Circuit on direct appeal of his conviction. Word requests an evidentiary hearing, polygraph tests of all those allegedly involved, and whatever else is necessary to dig out the truth. In addition, Word has filed a motion to recuse Judge Pollack because of his alleged complicity in this alleged conspiracy. BACKGROUND The facts underlying this motion are set forth in greater detail in this Court's opinion on one of Word's prior § 2255 motions, 616 F. Supp. 695, and familiarity with them is assumed. The relevant facts will be summarized only briefly below. On December 1, 1982, a jury found Word guilty of both one count of conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute and one count of attempted possession of one kilogram of heroin with intent to distribute. This Court sentenced Word to concurrent fifteen-year prison terms on each count, a $50,000 fine on each count, and ten years of special parole on the attempt count. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (1982). On May 20, 1983, the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. United States v. Word, 742 F.2d 1444 (2d Cir. 1983)(aff'g without published opinion). One month later, on June 18, 1984, Word filed his first pro se § 2255 petition, basically reasserting claims that the Second Circuit had rejected in Word's direct appeal of his conviction. In a memorandum decision, dated August 3, 1984, this Court denied Word's motion. On March 28, 1985, the Second Circuit summarily affirmed that decision. Word v. United States, 762 F.2d 991 (2d Cir. 1985)(aff'g without published opinion). On August 13, 1985, Word filed his second § 2255 motion, claiming that the government had brought him to trial too quickly. Before a decision had been rendered on that motion, Word filed a "supplemental brief," which speculated, without a shred of evidentiary support, that the full grand jury had not considered the superseding indictment upon which he was tried. Rather than decide Word's new allegation on a third § 2255 motion, this Court consolidated the allegations and, on August 27, 1985, denied the motion. Word v. United States, 616 F. Supp. 695 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). On September 13, 1985, Word filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court's August 27, 1985 decision. On October 3, 1985, this Court denied Word's motion for reconsideration. Word v. United States, 620 F. Supp. 43 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Word has filed a notice of appeal from that decision. Word v. United States, No. 85-2328 (2d Cir. November 1, 1985). On February 27, 1986, Word filed the present § 2255 motion, his fourth. DISCUSSION Word has become a chronic litigant, abusing the process provided for by Congress in § 2255. Rule 9(b) of the Rules governing § 2255 motions provides that: (b) Successive motions. A second or successive motion may be dismissed if the judge finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the movant to assert those grounds ...