The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eduardo C. Robreno, J.
Before the Court is Petitioner William Harrison's ("Harrison" or "Petitioner") Habeas Corpus Motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging three grounds for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights; (2) the Government's Suppression of the Brady/Giglio materials and (3) Harrison's actual innocense. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
This case has been before the Court since July 10, 2003. The Court provided an extensive chronology and procedural history of the case in its February 7, 2006 Memorandum denying Harrison's motion for acquittal and for reconsideration of the denial of his Rule 29 motion, United States v. Harrison, No. 03-430, 2006 WL 287857 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2006), and will not do so here.
On July 8, 2004, a jury found Petitioner guilty on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
This Court originally sentenced Harrison to 210 months in prison, but, on May 19, 2006, following the discovery of a clerical error in the calculation of the applicable sentencing guideline range, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) and with the agreement of the parties, the Court re-sentenced Harrison to 188 months imprisonment. (See Doc. No. 131.) Harrison appealed, and his sentence and conviction were affirmed. United States v. Harrison, No. 06-1970, 293 F. App'x 929, 2008 WL 4368527 (3d Cir. Sept. 26, 2008).
On September 21, 2009, Petitioner filed the timely instant habeas corpus motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging this Court's sentence and requesting that the Court vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence for ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Pet'r. Mot., doc. no. 152.)
In his habeas motion, Petitioner alleges:
1. Ineffective assistance of counsel of trial counsel, Carlos A. Martir, Esq., in violation of the Sixth Amendment;
2. The Government's suppression of the Brady/Giglio materials;
3. Harrison is actually innocent. (See Pet'r. Mot. at 6.)
On December 30, 2009, the Government filed a response in opposition to Petitioner's § 2255 motion, to which Petitioner replied on February 9, 2010. (See Gov't Br.; Pet'r. Reply.) ...