Shreeves v. USA - 2255

D. Maryland

Shreeves v. USA - 2255

DecidedNovember 21, 2019

Docket1:18-cv-02695

StatusUnknown

This text of Shreeves v. USA - 2255 (Shreeves v. USA - 2255) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shreeves v. USA - 2255, (D. Md. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BRIAN SHREEVES v. | CIVIL NO. CCB-18-2695 > Criminal No. CCB-13-0682 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ...000... MEMORANDUM Now pending is a motion filed by Brian Shreeves under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, The government has filed a . response and Shreeves has filed a reply. For the reasons that follow, Shreeves’s motion will be denied. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Shreeves must show both deficient performance and prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-91 (1984). He has shown neither. - First, there would have been no basis to object that Shreeves was charged with conspiracy but had

. co-defendants. The charge and the instructions were proper, and the evidence of a conspiracy was extremely strong. Second, Shreeves claims that his signature was forged on his advice of rights form, This issue was raised before trial, and Shreeves testified to it at trial. He has not shown that a handwriting expert would have supported his claim. Third, Shreeves identifies no basis on which his counsel successfully could have objected to the admission of a package of marijuana that was seized in connection with the conspiracy and testified to by one of the government’s witnesses, a co-conspirator. There is noyreqiyjrement thatthe marijuana had to be presented to the grand jury. Bae . “s Fourth, Shreeves’s claim that he was not read his Miranda rights and his ittorney was not allowed to be present was thoroughly litigated at trial and addressed on appeal. Uiited States v. Shreeves, No. [6-

4671, 698 F. App’x. 131 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), ECF 183. Further, the declaration of his immigration attorney submitted with his reply is not inconsistent with the government agent’s testimony that Miranda rights were given to Shreeves in the vehicle in the sally port area, not in the USCIS interview room. ECF No. 113 at 50-51; ECF No. 199-1, Decl. of Steven Kreiss at 3. Finally, the evidence in this case was very strong, including co-conspirator testimony and evidence of the seizure of large amounts of cash, financial records, and inculpatory text messages. For that additional reason, no prejudice has been shown. See Gardner v. Ozmint, 511 F.3d 420, 431 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the motion will be denied and no certificate of appealability will be issued. A separate Order follows.

Me /sf WH ate Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BRIAN SHREEVES v. | CIVIL NO. CCB-18-2695 > Criminal No. CCB-13-0682 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ...000... MEMORANDUM Now pending is a motion filed by Brian Shreeves under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, The government has filed a . response and Shreeves has filed a reply. For the reasons that follow, Shreeves’s motion will be denied. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Shreeves must show both deficient performance and prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-91 (1984). He has shown neither. - First, there would have been no basis to object that Shreeves was charged with conspiracy but had

. co-defendants. The charge and the instructions were proper, and the evidence of a conspiracy was extremely strong. Second, Shreeves claims that his signature was forged on his advice of rights form, This issue was raised before trial, and Shreeves testified to it at trial. He has not shown that a handwriting expert would have supported his claim. Third, Shreeves identifies no basis on which his counsel successfully could have objected to the admission of a package of marijuana that was seized in connection with the conspiracy and testified to by one of the government’s witnesses, a co-conspirator. There is noyreqiyjrement thatthe marijuana had to be presented to the grand jury. Bae . “s Fourth, Shreeves’s claim that he was not read his Miranda rights and his ittorney was not allowed to be present was thoroughly litigated at trial and addressed on appeal. Uiited States v. Shreeves, No. [6-

4671, 698 F. App’x. 131 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), ECF 183. Further, the declaration of his immigration attorney submitted with his reply is not inconsistent with the government agent’s testimony that Miranda rights were given to Shreeves in the vehicle in the sally port area, not in the USCIS interview room. ECF No. 113 at 50-51; ECF No. 199-1, Decl. of Steven Kreiss at 3. Finally, the evidence in this case was very strong, including co-conspirator testimony and evidence of the seizure of large amounts of cash, financial records, and inculpatory text messages. For that additional reason, no prejudice has been shown. See Gardner v. Ozmint, 511 F.3d 420, 431 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the motion will be denied and no certificate of appealability will be issued. A separate Order follows.

Me /sf WH ate Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Shreeves v. USA - 2255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shreeves-v-usa-2255-mdd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack