Woodruff v. United States of America

Filing 10

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT. Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 6/2/15. (Breen, J.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
TROY WOODRUFF,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 14-1054

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT
_____________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion of the Petitioner, Troy Woodruff,
to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence (the "Petition"). (D.E. 1.) Woodruff, Bureau of
Prisons register number 23927-076, is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution –
Medium in Forrest City, Arkansas.
On May 17, 2010, a federal grand jury, in Case No. 1:10-10052-JDB, returned a onecount indictment against Petitioner, charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). On May 26, 2010, CJA attorney Bob C. Hooper of Brownsville,
Tennessee was appointed to represent him. Woodruff pleaded guilty on December 6, 2010 and,
on February 14, 2012, was sentenced to 120 months incarceration. He filed a notice of appeal on
February 22, 2012. The sentence was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. See
United States v. Woodruff, 735 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2013), reh'g & reh'g en banc denied (Dec. 4,
2013).
In his Petition, Woodruff asserts ineffective assistance of counsel by Mr. Hooper for
failing to object to the Court‘s classification of his Tennessee conviction for “facilitation” as a

controlled-substance offense for purposes of sentencing. This issue was also raised on direct
appeal. The Sixth Circuit declined to address the claim, noting that "[i]n this case, there is no
affidavit or testimony from Woodruff's trial counsel explaining his decision not to raise an
objection to the [presentence report's] finding that his conviction for facilitation was a controlledsubstance offense." Id. at 452. In light of the appellate court's statement, the Respondent is
hereby DIRECTED to obtain from Mr. Hooper, within fifteen days of the entry of this order, an
affidavit such as that described by the Sixth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of June 2015.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2