United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
W.TRUMBLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
April 24, 2017, the pro se Petitioner filed an
Application for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner is a federal inmate housed at USP
Hazelton who is challenging the validity of his conviction
imposed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. This matter is pending before the
undersigned for an initial review and Report and
Recommendation pursuant to LR PL P 2.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Conviction and Sentence
November 6, 2014, a grand jury indicted Petitioner and
charged him with two counts of bank robbery, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). ECF No. 6. On March 25, 2015,
Petitioner entered a guilty plea to both counts of the
indictment. ECF No. 13. On June 25, 2015, Petitioner was
sentenced to 66 months of imprisonment, followed by three
years of supervised release. ECF No. 20.
has not filed an appeal with the Third Circuit Court of
Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
April 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to vacate,
set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. ECF No. 22. On December 7, 2017,
Petitioner's § 2255 motion was denied by Memorandum
decision and Order. ECF Nos. 47, 48. In its Memorandum
decision, the Court summarized Petitioner's arguments
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his
attorney failed to:
(1) Request additional time to rebut the United States'
response to Mr. Townsend's sentencing memorandum,
violating his due process rights; (2) argue insufficient
evidence to support an element of the bank robbery offense;
(3) challenge the federal bank robbery statute as
unconstitutionally vague; (4) request a downward variance
based on his conditions of confinement at his Delaware County
facility compared to the Federal Detention Center in
Philadelphia; and (5) argue Mr. Townsend's criminal
history is inflated based on 2005 and 2007 offense in the
presentence investigation report.
ECF No. 47 at 4. Petitioner further argued that the
conditions of his supervised release were unconstitutionally
vague. Id. at 5.