Whitworth v. United States of America, The
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Karon O Bowdre on 5/23/13. (SAC )
2013 May-23 PM 04:24
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RONALD LOYD WHITWORTH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case No. 2:11-cv-08016-KOB-HGD
On January 29, 2013, the magistrate judge entered his report and
recommendation, giving the parties fourteen days to file objections to the
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. (Doc. 69). On February 11,
2013, the petitioner, through counsel, filed objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation. (Doc. 72).
On February 6, 2013, the petitioner also filed his own objections. (Doc. 73).
Although the court had no obligation to consider those objections, the court
gratuitously reviewed them as well. Specifically regardubg the petitioner’s own
objections, the court notes that while he alleges a lack of understanding of certain
matters, the record as a whole demonstrates that he is a college educated former
police officer who had the benefit of ample opportunity to discuss matters with
counsel and who expressed his understanding of the plea agreement to the court.
Page 1 of 4
The record as a whole—including his signature in numerous places within the plea
agreement itself and his responses during the plea hearing—reflect a full
understanding. Further, his protestation of innocence rings hollow; the petitioner
as former police officer, more than many defendants, had a broad understanding of
the charges against him, his options, the overwhelming weight of the evidence
against him, and the choice he made to plead guilty.
After careful consideration of the entire record in this case, including the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and the petitioner’s objections
(docs. 72 & 73), the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The
court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge that the
court deny the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 1); that the court deny the petitioner’s motions for summary
judgment (docs. 6& 48) and his Motion to Dismiss Criminal Charges (doc. 47);
that the court deny as moot the petitioner’s motion for estimated date of ruling on
his § 2255 motion (doc. 61); and that the court deny the petitioner’s motion to
dismiss his criminal case (doc. 66).
After the magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation, the
petitioner, on his own, filed three additional motions: Motion for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Ad Testificandum (doc. 76); Motion for an Issuance of an Order for
Immediate Release (doc. 81); and Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law (doc 82). The court finds that the Petitioner’s Motion for
Page 2 of 4
Issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (doc. 76) is due to be denied. In
that motion, the petitioner asks the court to direct the Marshal to return him to the
Northern District of Alabama for an additional evidentiary hearing. In light of the
fact that the magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on January 22, 2013, the
court finds no grounds to grant this motion for an additional evidentiary hearing.
The court also finds that the petitioner’s Motion for an Issuance of an Order
for Immediate Release (doc. 81) is due to be denied. The petitioner bases his
motion on the claim that his binding plea agreement provided for only a 60-month
sentence. As discussed at length in the report and recommendation, the petitioner’s
reliance on this claim for a 60-month sentence is misplaced and erroneous. The
court sentenced the petitioner to the 240 months that was required by the binding
plea agreement—not 60-months as the petitioner claims.
The court further finds that in light of this Memorandum Opinion and Final
Judgment entered this date, the Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law (doc. 82) is due to be denied as moot.
The court also finds that the petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing
(doc. 56) is due to be denied as moot. The magistrate judge held an evidentiary
hearing in this matter on January 22, 2013.
The court will enter a separate order in conformity with this Memorandum
Page 3 of 4
DONE and ORDERED this 23nd day of May, 2013.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?