MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
TERRENCE F. McVERRY, District Judge.
Now pending before the Court are numerous motions filed by Defendant Terrald Bennett: a MOTION TO STRIKE Civil Action No. 11-965 (Document No. 899), to which the government filed a response in opposition; a MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE BY A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY (Document No. 904), with brief in support, to which the government has filed a response in opposition and Bennett filed a reply brief; a PRO SE MOTION FOR A § 2255 EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON ALL ISSUES (Document No. 938), with brief in support; and a PRO SE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 18 U.S.C. § 2255 COUNSEL UNDER § 3006A(g) (Document No. 940). The motions are ripe for disposition.
Factual and Procedural Background
On March 1, 2011, a federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment which charged Bennett and eight co-Defendants with conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin from June 2009 through February 2011. On March 3, 2011 Bennett filed a Financial Affidavit in which he stated that he had no cash on hand or money in savings or checking accounts. Accordingly, attorney Patrick Livingston was appoint by the Court to serve as counsel for Bennett pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act ("CJA").
On July 15, 2011, the government filed a three-count superseding indictment which named a total of eighteen Defendants. In addition to the heroin conspiracy at Count 1, Bennett was charged at Count 2 of the superseding indictment with money laundering, from March 2009 through April 2011, along with his girlfriend, Michelle Jimenez.
On July 26, 2011, the government filed a complaint at Civil Action No. 11-965, to seek civil forfeiture of monies seized from two PNC Bank safe deposit boxes ($15, 205.00 and $72, 330.00, respectively) and $6, 602.09 in cash seized from the home of Bennett and Jimenez. The seizures occurred during the execution of search warrants as part of the investigation of the heroin conspiracy. Civil Action No. 11-965 was stayed pending resolution of the criminal case.
On November 17, 2011, Bennett filed a pro se motion to remove his CJA attorney, Patrick Livingston, and appoint new counsel. The Court denied the motion because Bennett had not provided any substantive basis for such action. On February 13, 2012 Bennett filed another motion, which conclusorily alleged "irreconcilable differences" with Livingston and asked the Court to appoint a lawyer of Bennett's choice. Livingston filed a response in opposition to motion, noting that the motion had been drafted several months earlier; that he and Bennett did not have any fundamental disagreements or misunderstandings; and that they had "developed a productive working relationship." The Court denied the motion.
In April 2012, Livingston filed numerous motions on behalf of Bennett, including motions to suppress evidence. The motions were never ruled upon because the parties informed the Court that Bennett had agreed to plead guilty. On June 24, 2012, just days prior to the scheduled plea hearing, Livingston filed a motion to withdraw as counsel.
On June 27, 2012 the Court held a hearing, at which Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") Gregory Nescott, Livingston and Bennett discussed the history of Livingston's representation and the status of plea negotiations. The hearing Transcript is filed at Document No. 951. Bennett confirmed that he was aware of and understood all of the matters discussed and set forth in the draft plea agreement, and stated that he was willing to plead guilty at that time, but not with Livingston as his attorney. Transcript at 3. The Court explained that Bennett had the choice to continue pro se with Livingston serving as "stand-by counsel." Livingston stated that he and Bennett had a fundamental disagreement about the role of counsel, although he refused to provide details to preserve the attorney-client privilege. The Court reviewed a list of tasks that Livingston had performed during his representation (explanations of charges, potential penalties, discovery materials, plea negotiations, etc.) Bennett stated: "I don't have nothing against Mr. Livingston, but..." Bennett did not understand his role in the alleged conspiracy, due to his lack of contacts with co-Defendant James Green. Transcript at 8. Livingston stated that Bennett was concerned that a kilogram of heroin was being attributed to him, which would trigger a ten-year mandatory sentence. Livingston then explained that the weight of the heroin would not ultimately affect Bennett's sentence, because if the weight was reduced, the AUSA would file a § 851 Information regarding a prior felony drug conviction, such that Bennett would receive a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence in any event. Transcript at 10-11. Livingston then explained that Bennett had agreed to discuss the plea negotiations on an open record, and that the record would demonstrate that Bennett received assistance of counsel during the plea negotiation process. Transcript at 10-11. Bennett confirmed that he understood what Livingston had told the Court, but continued to have questions about the factual evidence against him. Transcript at 12. Livingston suggested that a "reverse proffer" by the government would be helpful and the AUSA agreed. The Court explained to Bennett that he should not feel any pressure to enter a plea of guilty, but could think about what he wanted to do overnight, over a week or two, or whatever he wanted. Transcript at 17. The parties then took a recess, during which the AUSA privately provided a summary of the evidence against Bennett. When the hearing resumed, Bennett notified the Court that he agreed to plead guilty and to be sentenced without a pre-sentence investigation report ("PSI"), pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement with the government. Transcript at 18-19. Bennett also agreed that Livingston would continue to represent him. Transcript at 19. Therefore, the Court denied Livingston's motion to withdraw as moot and scheduled a plea/sentencing hearing for the next week.
On July 3, 2012 Bennett pled guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the Superseding Indictment. In the written plea agreement, Bennett and the government stipulated that the amount of heroin attributable to him was between one and three kilograms, and the value of the laundered funds was $70, 000-$120, 000. The Court conducted an extensive colloquy to determine that Bennett's plea was knowing and voluntary and that he agreed to be sentenced in accordance with the stipulated penalties set forth in the plea agreement.
In the colloquy, the Court also confirmed that Bennett had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to file a direct appeal (except for certain specified exceptions); and had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to file a collateral appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Transcript at 18-19; See also Plea Agreement § A(8). As part of the colloquy, the Court also asked Bennett whether he was "satisfied in all respects with the advice and representation" which Livingston had provided to him. Bennett answered "Yes." Transcript at 35.
The Court then proceeded directly to sentencing. In his remarks to the Court prior to receiving his sentence, Bennett apologized to Livingston. In response, the Court stated: "When I resisted your attempt to fire Mr. Livingston, to be very candid with you, I was trying to do what was best for you also because I know this gentleman and I know what he does in representation of people in this court, and I think he did a fine job for you...." Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c) and the stipulated sentence agreed upon by the parties in the plea agreement, Bennett was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 120 months at both counts, to run concurrently. This represented the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Bennett was also required to forfeit two automobiles and sentenced to a total of five years of supervised release. A Judgment of Conviction Order was entered the same day. Bennett did not file a direct appeal.
On December 5, 2012, Bennett filed a petition at Criminal Case No. 11-53 for return of $72, 330.00 seized from one of the safe deposit boxes. The government filed a response in opposition to the motion, and explained that this money was the subject of civil forfeiture proceedings at Civil Action No. 11-965. On December 14, 2012 the Court denied Bennett's motion.
On February 2, 2013 as part of the sentence Jimenez received in Criminal Case No. 11-53, she was required to forfeit her interest in the monies seized from the safety deposit boxes and from the home. On March 28, 2013, at Civil Action No. 11-965, the Court granted the government's motion for civil forfeiture as to $15, 205.00 seized from a safe deposit box. The civil litigation continues as to $72, 330.00 seized from the other safe deposit box and the $6, 602.09 seized from the Bennett/Jimenez home. The government has represented that it will move to lift the ...