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.

United States v. Mustaafa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION


July 22, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MUFF'T ISMAEL MUSTAAFA, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY Chief U.S. District Judge

OPINION

On December 7, 2000, Defendant, Muff'T Ismael Mustaafa, was charged by indictment with the offenses of possessing a mixture or substance containing cocaine base ("crack"), a Schedule II controlled substance, with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A), and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On April 20, 2001, Defendant entered a guilty plea to both charges. On July 9, 2001, Defendant was sentenced to terms of 240 months and 120 months, to run concurrently. Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal. On December 20, 2002, the court received a mandate from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which stated that Defendant's appeal was dismissed.

On July 17, 2008, Defendant filed a Motion under Federal Civil Rules of Procedure 60(b)(6) (#55). In his Motion, Defendant claims that the Government prosecutor and Government chemist committed a fraud upon the court because cocaine base ("crack") is not listed in Schedule II. Defendant asked this court to "find that the government prosecutor and government chemist committed a fraud upon the court in the defendant's criminal case." Defendant was very careful to refrain from asking that his conviction and sentence be vacated (although that must be what he wants) in an obvious attempt to avoid having his Motion construed as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This is because any Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 would be many years too late.

In any case, Defendant's claim of "fraud" is patently frivolous and entirely without merit. This court therefore concludes that Defendant has not provided any valid basis for granting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion under Federal Civil Rules of Procedure 60(b)(6) (#55) is DENIED.

ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2008

20080722

© 1992-2008 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.