Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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


June 7, 2005.

LARRY HOOVER, Plaintiff,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: HARRY LEINENWEBER, District Judge


Petitioner Larry Hoover (hereinafter "Hoover") requests the Court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons set forth below, the Court declines to do so.


  In 1998, Hoover was convicted of a number of offenses related to his involvement with a notorious Chicago narcotics group, the Gangster Disciples. Hoover served on the gang's "Board of Directors" as its highest ranking member with the title of "Chairman of the Board." His convictions included: engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, 21 U.S.C. § 848(a); using minors to further a drug conspiracy, § 861(a); possession and distribution of narcotics, § 841(a)(1); using a telephone to facilitate a drug offense, § 843(b); and using a firearm during and in relation to a drug offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. See United States v. Hoover, 246 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 2001). Subsequent filings for a Seventh Circuit en banc rehearing and a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court were denied. See United States v. Hoover, No. 98-2600, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 10566 (7th Cir. May 14, 2001); Hoover v. United States, 536 U.S. 958 (2002).

  At trial, the government's key evidence against Hoover came from recordings of intercepted conversations (the "tapes") between Hoover and other individuals who visited him while he was incarcerated at the Vienna Correctional Center, many of whom where later convicted as co-conspirators. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3), the government obtained warrant authorization for the tapes from a district court. The government concealed listening devices inside visitor badges, which all visitors were required to wear during their time at Vienna. A number of the tapes yielded evidence regarding the gang's drug related activities in Chicago.

  In May 2003, Hoover filed this § 2255 Motion for post-conviction relief. Hoover's petition asserts three claims, which more discernibly represent four claims related to the tapes: (1) the tapes violated the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 2511(c) because the listening devices were on the "body" of another, which required the consent of either the person upon whose body the device was placed or Hoover himself; (2) the government's original application to intercept oral communications did not meet the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement because it did not clearly state the place where the communications would be intercepted; (3) the court order authorizing the tapes was void because the government omitted material information as to the method of interception in its application for authorization; and (4) Hoover's counsel was ineffective because they failed to pursue any of the above issues concerning the tapes and authorization thereof.


  In order to gain relief under § 2255, the moving party must show either a "fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice," United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979), or "an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure." Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962). In addition, there are three claims that a § 2255 motion cannot raise: (1) issues that were raised on direct appeal, absent a showing of changed circumstances; (2) non-constitutional issues that could have been, but were not raised on direct appeal; and (3) constitutional issues that were not raised on direct appeal, unless the petitioner demonstrates cause for the procedural default as well as actual prejudice from the failure to appeal. Belford v. United States, 975 F.2d 310, 313 (7th Cir. 1992).


  A. Timeliness

  The government asserts that Hoover's § 2255 motion is time-barred. "A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section." § 2255. In this case, the Supreme Court denied Hoover's petition for certiorari on June 28, 2002, which made the judgment final and began the running of the one-year period. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003). Hoover had until June 28, 2003 to file his Petition. Because Hoover filed his Petition in May 2003, it is within the one-year statutory period of limitation and he is not time-barred.

  B. Consent

  Hoover's first claim is that under the Fourth Amendment or 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c), the government needed to obtain either Hoover's or his visitors' consent for admissible recordings. The Seventh Circuit already decided that the tapes were properly admitted at trial. See Hoover, 246 F.3d at 1057. The circumstances surrounding Hoover's case have not changed and both stare decisis and res judicata apply to bar this claim. Belford, 975 F.2d at 313; see also Shell v. United States, No. 03 C 3182, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16382, at *8-10 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2004).

  In any event, the consent claim also fails on review of the merits. In Hoover's case, as in Shell, the government obtained a court order for the monitoring, and therefore no consent was required to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Nerber, 222 F.3d 507, 606 (9th Cir. 2000). Additionally, Hoover's 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(C) challenge fails for the same reasons set out in Shell, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16382, at *10-11, and Jackson, No. 03 C 2119, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6929, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 22, 2004) ("[S]imply because consent makes it lawful to intercept a communication does not ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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