Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150410_0000423.EVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-05-26 18:48:27
Document Index: 576260116

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

| Matthews v. United States
Alexander Otis Matthews, Movant/Petitioner,v.United States of America, Respondent.
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Alexander Otis Matthew's Motion for Reconsideration, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Case No. 1:11 cr348, Dkt. 71.[1] In the instant motion, petitioner challenges this Court's denial of his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner has also filed several amendments and supplements to his Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, petitioner's Motion will be granted in part and denied in part. His Motion will be granted for the limited purpose of reviewing the merits of one claim raised in his § 2255 motion and not addressed by this Court. It will be denied in all other respects.
Petitioner has also submitted an amendment to his Motion for Reconsideration in which he "seeks an order compelling the district court in [Case No. 1:14cv248] to address and resolve the other five of the claims for relief therein." Dkt. 80, at 2. Petitioner states that the Court erroneously failed to address all of his claims for relief in Case No. 1:14cv248. This request must also be denied, as any motions petitioner wishes to file in Case No. 1:14cv248 must be filed in that case, rather than the instant case.
This Court provided a detailed explanation of petitioner's conviction and sentencing in its Order denying petitioner's § 2255 motion, and need not extensively relate these facts a second time. See Dkt. 53. As relevant to the instant motion, petitioner pled guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of bank fraud in this Court on July 15, 2011. See Dkt. 3. On February 8, 2012, he filed his § 2255 motion, alleging that:
 Trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to adequately advise petitioner during pre-trial proceedings; (2) failing to adequately advise petitioner of his actual sentence exposure; (3) failing to adequately advise petitioner during plea negotiations; and (4) failing to adequately investigate petitioner's case;
 Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the possibility of disposition without trial;
 Trial counsel was ineffective due to his conflict of interest;
 Trial counsel was ineffective due to "cumulative errors;"
 Petitioner's Due Process rights were violated by the U.S. Attorney's attempt to impede the filing of his § 2255 motion;
 Petitioner's Due Process rights were violated by the introduction of false information at his sentencing.
See Dkts. 13, 15. Petitioner also argued that he was selectively prosecuted based on his race. See Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate ("Pet's Mem.") [Dkt. 16], at 19-23.
This Court denied petitioner's § 2255 motion on April 17, 2013. Dkt. 53. Petitioner appealed this denial, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal on ...