IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 2, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
KWAME DWUMAAH, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 2nd day of June, 2010, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 94) to vacate the conviction of defendant Kwame Dwumaah ("Dwumaah"), and Dwumaah's "supplemental" motion (Doc. 96) to vacate his conviction, and Dwumaah's "updated" motion (Doc. 98) to vacate his conviction, wherein Dwumaah claims that his court-appointed attorney "misinformed him that if he pled guilty... he would not be deported[,]"*fn1 (Doc. 94 at 1), and he argues that the court should vacate his guilty plea, on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, under Padilla v. Kentucky,*fn2 ____ U.S. ____, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010), (see generally Docs. 94, 96, and 98), and on the basis of an alleged violation of his right to due process, (see Doc. 98 at 5-6), and upon further consideration of Dwumaah's motion (Doc. 95) for appointment of counsel, and the court noting that, if it construes the pending motions as petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, then they are barred,*fn3 see United States v. Lilly, 536 F.3d 190, 194 n.2 (3d Cir. 2008) (noting that "second or successive" motions under § 2255 are barred "absent exceptional circumstances and certification by the appropriate court of appeals[.]"), and the court concluding that Dwumaah's motions also fail on the merits, because they do not establish either a viable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,*fn4 or a viable due process claim,*fn5 and the court further concluding that Dwumaah has failed to establish his entitlement to appointed counsel to represent him in his motion to vacate,*fn6 it is hereby ORDERED that the motions (Doc. 94, 95, 96, and 98) are DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge