Huddleston v. United States of America
Filing
111
ORDER as to Sidney Edward Huddleston, III; adopting and incorporating the portions of the Magistrate Judge's 107 Proposed Findings and Recommendations to which no objection is filed, adopting and incorporating the portions to which Movant obje cts; denying Movant's 94 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255), denying Movant's 93 APPLICATION to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit; granting Respondent's 101 MOTION to Dismiss, and DISMISSING this action WITH PREJUDICE from the docket of the Court; denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 11/28/2012. (cc: Judge, Magistrate Judge Eifert, counsel, Movant, and any unrepresented parties) (mkw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
SIDNEY EDWARD HUDDLESTON III,
Movant,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-00403
(CRIMINAL No. 3:10-00042)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER
Currently pending before this Court is a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255. (ECF No. 94). In his Petition, Sidney Edward Huddleston III
challenges his 2010 guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm on or about
January 16, 2009, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). This action was referred to
the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of
proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
' 636(b)(1)(B). On August 29, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submitted her Proposed Findings and
Recommendations in which she recommends, inter alia, that Movant’s Petition be denied (ECF
No. 107). Movant now objects. (ECF No. 110).
The Court reviews any portion of the Magistrate Judge=s report to which objections
are made de novo, but to those portions of the report to which no objection is made, the Magistrate
Judge=s Findings and Recommendations will be upheld unless they are Aclearly erroneous@ or
1
Acontrary to law.@ See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Webb v. Califano, 468 F. Supp. 825, 828 (E.D. Cal.
1979) (citing 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A)). In this case, Movant’s objections focus on his claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel. Movant asserts he felt coerced into entering the plea because
(1) his second attorney did not pursue a motion to suppress filed by his first attorney regarding
evidence seized during a 2009 search of his residence, 1 and (2) his second attorney did not
investigate and pursue a motion to suppress a 2010 search of his property.2 However, as noted by
the Magistrate Judge, Movant has not offered any facts or arguments upon which the Court could
conclude that his suppression motions would have been successful.
Contrary to Movant’s
assertion, the mere fact motions were filed by his first attorney does not mean the motions were
meritorious. Likewise, as discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Movant has failed to demonstrate
how further investigation of the 2010 search would have changed the outcome of his case.3
Therefore, after careful consideration of Movant’s objections, the Court finds them
to be without merit. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and INCORPORATES the portions of
the Magistrate Judge=s Proposed Findings and Recommendations to which no objection is filed,
ADOPTS and INCORPORATES the portions to which Movant objects, DENIES Movant’s
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 94),
DENIES Movant’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (ECF No.
1
Movant’s first attorney withdrew because of a conflict of interest.
2
Numerous firearms were discovered during both searches.
3
Count Three of the Indictment was based upon the 2010 search. Count Three ultimately
was dismissed when Movant pled to Count One, which was based upon the 2009 search.
2
93), GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 101), and DISMISSES this action
WITH PREJUDICE from the docket of the Court.
The Court additionally has considered whether to grant a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c). A certificate will not be granted unless there is Aa
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.@ Id. at ' 2253(c)(2). The standard is
satisfied only upon a showing that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by this Court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling
is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). The Court concludes
that the governing standard is not satisfied in this instance. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a
certificate of appealability.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER:
November 28, 2012
ROBERT C. CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?