The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terrence F. McVerry United States District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently before the Court for disposition is the MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE BY A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY filed pro se by Petitioner Don Raoul Hough ("Hough") (Document No. 141), to which the government has responded in opposition (Document No. 148). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.
The relief sought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). Section 2255 provides, in relevant part:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a [federal] court ... claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
Although § 2255 includes a provision for a prompt evidentiary hearing, a federal court may deny a § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing if the "motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show" that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ; see also United States v. Booth, 432 F.3d 542, 545-46 (3d Cir.2005); United States v. McCoy, 410 F.3d 124, 131 (3d Cir.2005); Rule 8(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255 .
Procedural and Factual Background
The parties and the Court are familiar with the extensive background facts of Hough's criminal prosecution and, therefore, the Court will not detail the facts again. However, the following is a brief recitation of the procedural facts salient to the issues presently pending before the Court.
On June 16, 2003, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania returned two-count indictment in which Hough was charged in Count One with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), and in Count Two with possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(ii).
On January 21, 2004, the government filed an Information Charging Prior Offenses Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 851 (Document No. 18), which specifically alleged that Defendant had a previous conviction for a felony drug offense, to wit:
That Don Rauol Hough was convicted on or about July 21, 1998, in the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at docket umber CC 9801324 (Delivery of Controlled Substances, and Criminal Conspiracy), and at docket number CC 9801330 (Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance), and was thereafter sentenced on that same date to undergo imprisonment of not less than one (1) year nor more than two (2) years.
Information, Document No. 18.
On January 23, 2004, Hough, represented by Stanley Greenfield, Esquire, entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment and waived indictment and entered a plea of guilty to Counts One and Two of an Information filed at Criminal No. 04-07, which charged him in Count One with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 922(g), and in Count Two with possession of a destructive device, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 5861(d). A sentencing hearing was scheduled for April 23, 2004.
On March 18, 2004, Defendant wrote the Court a letter in which he informed the Court that he would like to withdraw his plea, that he had asked his counsel, Stanley Greenfield, Esquire, to withdraw his representation, and requested the Court to appoint the Office of the Federal Public Defender to represent him. On March 18, 2004, the Court granted Defendant's request for new counsel and appointed Thomas Livingston, Assistant Federal Public Defender, to represent the Defendant.
On June 3, 2004, through counsel, Hough moved to withdraw his guilty plea. On July 22, 2004, the Court conducted a hearing/argument on the Motion to Withdraw. Hough testified on his own behalf. He admitted that the firearms and drugs were his, and that he had traded the pipe bomb for drugs. By Memorandum Opinion and Order filed November 14, 2004, the Court granted Hough's Motion to Withdraw his guilty plea.
On December 22, 2004, the Grand Jury issued a five-count Superseding Indictment in which Hough was charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of Title 21, United States Code, sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (Count One); one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine in violation of Title 21, United States Code, sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(ii) (Count Two); one count of possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime in violation of Title 18, United States Code, sections 924(c)(1)(A) & 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) (Count Three); one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Title 18 United States Code, section 922(g) (Count Four); and one count of possession of an unregistered destructive device in violation of Title 26, United States Code, section 5861(d) (Count Five). On January 6, 2005, Hough was arraigned on the charges in the Superseding Indictment and he pled not guilty to each charge.
On March 3, 2005, after a four-day trial, a federal jury convicted Hough of all five counts contained in the Superseding Indictment. A sentencing hearing was conducted on July 13, 2005, at which Hough was sentenced to a total of 600 months imprisonment. Specifically, Hough received a 240-month term of imprisonment at Counts 1, 2, and 4, and a 120-month term of imprisonment at Count 5, all to run concurrently. Further, Hough was sentenced to a 360-month term of imprisonment at Count Three, to run consecutively to the other sentences. Upon release from imprisonment, Hough will be subject to a ten-year term of supervised release.
On July 18, 2005, Hough filed a timely notice of appeal. Hough's attorney, Arnold I. Klein, filed an Anders brief, in which he averred that he had reviewed the record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. Arnold I. Klein, Esquire, also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. Hough, in response, filed a pro se Response, in which he identified multiple challenges to his conviction and sentence.
On April 17, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Hough's conviction and sentence. On July 2, 2007, Hough's petition for rehearing was denied. On July 3, 2008, Hough filed the instant motion in which he raises eight (8) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel against his various trial and appellate attorneys.
It cannot go without notice that throughout the course of his criminal proceedings Hough was represented by multiple attorneys, to wit: Assistant Federal Public Defender Crystina Kowalczyk; Stanley Greenfield, Esquire; Assistant Federal Public Defendant Thomas Livingston; Stephen Greenberg, Esquire; and Arnold I Klein, Esquire. At various times, Hough complained about the performance of most, if not all, of these attorneys. Each of Hough's attorneys either moved this Court or the Court of Appeals to allow him or her to withdraw as counsel of record for Hough.
Pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, the Court must first determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required in this case. After reviewing the filings in this case, and the record, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not required because Hough has failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact. See United States v. Essig, 10 F.3d 968, 976 (3d Cir. 1993). Additionally, the files and records of the case conclusively establish that Hough is not entitled to relief. United States v. Booth, 432 F.3d 542, 545-46 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. McCoy, 410 F.3d 124, 131 (3d Cir. 2005). Therefore, the Court will proceed to the merits of the § 2255 motion.*fn1
All of Petitioner's claims assert the ineffectiveness of his counsel. The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of counsel and exists "in order to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial." Lockhart v. Fretwall, 506 U.S. 364, 368 (1993) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684 (1984)).
The United States Supreme Court has formulated a two-part test for determining whether counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance: (i) whether counsel's performance was unreasonable; and (ii) whether counsel's unreasonable performance actually prejudiced the defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. To determine whether counsel performed below the level expected from a reasonably competent attorney, it is necessary to judge counsel's challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed at the time of counsel's conduct. Id. at 690. A petitioner who claims that he or she was denied effective assistance of counsel carries the burden of proof. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658 (1984).
The first prong of the Strickland test requires that a defendant establish that his attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness by committing errors so serious that he or she was not functioning as "counsel" guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. A court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the totality of the circumstances, the challenged action "might be considered sound trial strategy." Id. at 689. The question is not whether the defense was free from errors of judgment, but whether counsel exercised the customary skill and knowledge that normally prevailed at the time and place. Id.
The second prong requires a defendant to demonstrate that counsel's errors deprived him of a fair trial and the result was unfair or reliable. Id. To prove prejudice, a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694. A "reasonable probability" is one that is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has endorsed the practical suggestion in Strickland to consider the prejudice prong before examining the performance prong "because this course of action is less burdensome to defense counsel." United States v. McCoy, 410 F.3d 124, 132 n.6 (3d Cir. 2005); see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 (stating that, "[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so," the prejudice prong should be examined before the performance prong "to ...