Richards v. USA - 2255
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake on 7/27/2017. (c/m)(hmls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EDWARD KERMIT RICHARDS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
: CIVIL NO. CCB-16-3821
: Criminal No. CCB-14-0385
Federal prison inmate Edward Kermit Richards, who was allowed to enter an agreedupon plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) to a lesser-included offense of the narcotics
conspiracy for which he was on trial, now has filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The government has responded, and Richards has replied. The motion will be denied, essentially
for the reasons thoroughly explained by the government, because Richards has failed to show
either deficient performance by his experienced trial counsel or any prejudice. Hill v. Lockhart,
474 U.S. 52 (1985); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
First, Richards was not entitled to a mitigating role adjustment either under his c-plea or
on the facts of the case. Any failure by defense counsel to inform him of Amendment 794 has no
Second, the record shows that Richards’s entry of his plea was intelligent and voluntary.
(Gov’t Resp., Ex. A, Plea Transcript). He admitted under oath facts which sustain the conviction
and demonstrate that his role in the offense was significant. And third, the potential crossexamination of one of the government’s witnesses was a right knowingly waived at the plea
hearing, and in any event very unlikely to have affected the outcome of the trial, had it
Finally, Richards’s claims of violations of the attorney-client privilege by his two prior
counsel, related to attendance at a reverse proffer and a “no comment” remark to the newspaper
are both meritless and procedurally defaulted.
Accordingly, no certificate of appealability will issue, and the motion will be denied by
separate Order which follows.
July 27, 2017
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge
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?