Bennett v. USA

Filing 12

///ORDER denying Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 USC 2255. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro. (vln)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dwight Bennett
v.

Case No. 11-cv-78-PB

United States of America

O R D E R

Dwight Bennett has filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 arguing that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective
for three reasons.

First, he claims that counsel should have

challenged the indictment because it did not identify a drug
quantity.

Second, he argues that counsel should have challenged

the indictment because the public record does not reflect the
fact that it was signed by the foreperson.

Finally, he argues

that counsel improperly failed to challenge the lawfulness of
his arrest.
All three of Bennett’s arguments are obviously meritless
for the reasons set forth in the government’s well-drafted
response to the motion.
those reasons here.

No point would be served by restating

Instead, it is sufficient to merely note

that the court adopts the government’s reasoning in its

entirety. Bennett’s motion (Doc. No. 1) is denied.
Because Bennett has failed to make a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right, the court declines to
issue a certificate of appealability.

See 28 U.S.C.§

2253(c)(2); Rule 11, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under
Section 2254; First Cir. LR 22.0.
SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge

July 11, 2011
cc:

Dwight Bennett, pro se
Seth Aframe, Esq.