Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

13-051 - USA v. WHITE


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
13-051 - USA v. WHITE
February 16, 2018
PDF | More
Entry Denying Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 And Denying Certificate of Appealability - Petitioner Bruce White brought this action pro se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his § 2255 motion he raised two ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and a claim pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The Court denied his Johnson claim and set his two ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for a hearing. Mr. White was appointed counsel to represent him at the hearing. Mr. White abandoned one of his two remaining claims and proceeded at the hearing only with the following claim: whether his trial counsel, Gwendolyn Beitz, provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to withdraw Mr. White's guilty plea. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that Ms. Beitz did not provide ineffective assistance in failing to move to withdraw the guilty plea, and thus Mr. White's § 2255 motion is denied. Mr. White's motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied for the reasons explained above. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court finds that the petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find it "debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/16/2018.(APD)