Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. v. KELLY

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


March 10, 2004.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
v.
PAUL KELLY, Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MORAN, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner first sought, pro se, various documents and transcripts, preparatory to filing a § 2255 petition, while his appeal was still pending. That motion was denied as premature, coincidentally on the same day his conviction was affirmed. He subsequently filed this action and renews his request

His request for transcripts requires a certification that the suit is not frivolous and that the transcript is needed to decide the issues presented. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). We turn, then, to the issues raised in his petition.

  He raises three issues, all predicated on ineffective assistance of counsel. The first is, apparently, that his counsel possibly acquiesced in or failed to prevent a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, in that far more than thirty days elapsed between arrest and indictment. The second is that his counsel, at sentencing, failed to attack the amount of drugs calculation and the enhancement for the use of minors, and for being a leader. The third is that his appellate counsel failed to raise the Speedy Trial Act claim.

  Most of the matters petitioner seeks have no relation to his claims and are sought, it Page 2 appears, in hopes that something else will turn up. These include Items 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The only item that might possibly be helpful to petitioner Is transcript from three dates in 1999, item 2. Since we do not know what then transpired, we cannot conclude that the claim is frivolous or not frivolous, and the transcript is necessary to determine that. We will, therefore, authorize preparation of the transcript for review by the court and for transmission to petitioner if it provides any support for the claim. We should advise petitioner that, even were he successful on his claim, the best he could hope for is that the government would have to begin anew, and it would be able to use the same evidence as before, including petitioner's own statements to the extent indicated by the Court of Appeals. The motion is granted to the limited extent indicated and is otherwise denied. Page 1

20040310

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.