Rainer v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 28

ORDERED that on or before 11/22/2011, the petitioner may file a reply to the supplemental response filed by the United States, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 11/1/2011. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
LORENZO RAINER,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:11cv414-MEF
(WO)

ORDER
Pursuant to the orders of this court, the United States has filed a supplemental
response (Doc. No. 27) addressing the claims presented by the petitioner in the amended 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In its supplemental response, the government contends that the
petitioner’s claim of a denial of due process based on the trial court’s failure to instruct the
jury regarding electronic conversations is meritless. The government likewise argues that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief based on his claim that his appellate counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise an issue concerning the absence of a jury instruction regarding
electronic conversations. The government next argues that there is no merit to the
petitioner’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a judgment of
acquittal, because counsel did in fact move for a judgment of acquittal. Finally, the
government argues that the petitioner’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for
“tricking him” into waiving his right to testify is without factual support and rests on
allegations that fail to establish deficient performance and prejudice, as required by

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that on or before November 22, 2011, the petitioner may file a reply to
the supplemental response filed by the United States. Any documents or evidence filed after
this date will not be considered by the court except upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances. At any time after November 22, 2011, the court shall “determine whether
an evidentiary hearing is required. If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not required,
the [court] shall make such disposition of the motion as justice dictates.” Rule 8(a), Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts
Done this 1st day of November, 2011.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker
SUSAN RUSS WALKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2