Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Cobb

United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

September 4, 2014

UNITED STATES
v.
DAVID COBB Criminal Action No. 09-733-02

MEMORANDUM

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Petitioner David Cobb (“Petitioner”) seeks habeas relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, based on a claim that his trial counsel, Roland B. Jarvis, Esq., (“Counsel, ”) was unconstitutionally ineffective, in violation of Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to representation by counsel. Respondent, the United States Government, asserts that (1) Petitioner’s motion was untimely, and (2) Counsel was not ineffective under the standard outlined in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 671 (1984).

I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner was charged, in an April 19, 2010 superseding indictment, with conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count One), and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count Two).

Following a five-day trial, the jury convicted Petitioner and co-conspirator Jonathan Cobb on all counts.[1] Petitioner was sentenced to 288 months’ imprisonment, 8 years supervised release, and a $1, 500 fine. District Court Judgment 1, ECF No. 179. On November 8, 2010, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal through Counsel. Pet.’s Notice of Appeal 1, ECF No. 182. Petitioner submitted a letter to the court on December 15, 2010, indicating that he no longer wished to be represented by Mr. Jarvis. Letter from David Cobb to the Court (Dec. 15, 2010) ECF No. 193. However, Mr. Jarvis did represent Petitioner on his appeal with the Third Circuit. On May 25, 2012, the Third Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court as to both Petitioner and Jonathon Cobb. Third Circuit Judgment 2, ECF No. 215.

On September 24, 2013, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence, ECF No. 221 [hereinafter “§ 2255 Pet.”]. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Law and Authorities in support of his § 2255 Petition. See Mem. L. & Authorities Supp. Pet’r’s Mot. Vacate, Set-Aside, or Correct Conviction or Sentence, ECF No. 223 [hereinafter “§ 2255 Mem.”]. Petitioner therein alleges that Counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) to join co-conspirator Jonathan Cobb’s pre-trial motion to suppress the wiretap evidence; (2) explain the law of conspiracy; and (3) file a written Rule 29 motion after being requested to do so. § 2255 Mem. 5-8.

The Government submitted its response in opposition to the § 2255 petition on November 26, 2013. The Government asserts that the § 2255 petition should be denied on the following grounds: (1) Petitioner’s motion was untimely under the limitations provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2255(f); and (2) Petitioner’s allegations that Counsel was ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment do not satisfy the mandatory two-part test set forth in Strickland. Gov’t’s Response in Opp’n, 4-6, ECF No. 226; see 466 U.S. at 687. In support of this second assertion, the Government analyzes and dismisses each of Petitioner’s three claims of ineffectiveness. Gov’t’s Response in Opp’n, 7-9.

II. ANALYSIS

A criminal defendant may petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 within one year of the latest of:

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.