Banks v. United States of America

Filing 124

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Petitioner's 123 PETITION For Writ of Error as to Jermaine Donnell Banks. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/12/2017. (cc: Petitioner, attys) (mk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD JERMAINE DONNELL BANKS, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-09822 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:07-00157 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On May 26, 2017, this court denied Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Audita Querela. See Doc. Nos. 120—21. On June 30, 2017, Petitioner sought a Writ of Error under Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 52(b) states: “A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.” Petitioner argues that it was plain error for the court to have accepted his plea agreement since Petitioner supposedly did not understand that he was leaving himself open to the 192-month sentence he ended up receiving. See Doc. No. 123. This is, at best, buyer’s remorse on Petitioner’s part. Since there is no credible evidence whatsoever that Petitioner was coerced or improperly induced to accept the plea agreement or that he misunderstood its terms, this court cannot now conclude that Petitioner did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter his plea. See, e.g., North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37—38 (1970); Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 797—98 (1970). Consequently, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Error is DENIED. The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to Petitioner. It is SO ORDERED this 12th day of September, 2017.                   ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 2   

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?