Bennett v. USA

Filing 12

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

Download PDF
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.

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?