IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
November 12, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF,
ARTURO RAMIREZ, JR. DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott, U.S. District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) (d/e 91) by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore regarding Defendant Arturo Ramirez, Jr.'s pro se Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and Request for Suppression Re-Hearing (Motion) (d/e 88). The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Motion without a hearing. Defendant has timely filed pro se objections in the form of his Motion for Objection to Report and Recommendation (Objections), which was docketed in conjunction with his Motion for Substitution of Counsel (d/e 92).*fn1
The Court has carefully reviewed Ramirez's objections, and considered them in light of the record of the evidentiary hearing held before Judge Cudmore on Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motions (d/e 59), which took place on January 28, 2009. Minute Entry of January 28, 2009. Judge Cudmore filed a Report and Recommendation on February 2, 2009, recommending that the motions be denied. Report and Recommendation (d/e 75). After Defendant objected to the Report and Recommendation, this Court carefully reviewed the record of the hearing and then on March 23, 2009, overruled Defendant's objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and denied the motions. Opinion (d/e 81). The Court concludes that the issues now raised by the Defendant in his pro se Motion and Objections are unsubstantiated and without merit.
Defendant maintains that the Government never signed the Plea Agreement in this case. However, a fully executed copy of the Plea Agreement has been filed in this case at Docket Entry 84. See Plea Agreement (d/e 84).
Likewise, Defendant's argument that adding Attorney Mark Wykoff to the case prejudiced him in some way is without merit, as are his other complaints about his attorneys. There is absolutely no evidence in the record that Defendant's counsel represented Defendant in anything other than a reasonably proficient fashion. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984); Galbraith v. United States, 313 F.3d 1001, 1008 (7th Cir. 2002).
Defendant has already raised and the Court has already rejected the other issues contained in the Motion and Objections. These claims were addressed at the hearing on the Omnibus Pretrial Motions, and Defendant did not prevail. The Court agrees with the R&R that there is no legitimate basis to address these contentions once again.
Accordingly, Defendant's pro se Objections to Report and Recommendation filed in conjunction with his Motion for Substitution of Counsel (d/e 92) are OVERRULED. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (d/e 91), and denies Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and for Suppression Re-Hearing (d/e 88). Sentencing is set for November 16, 2009, at 3:30 p.m.
IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED.
ENTER: November 12, 2009
JEANNE E. SCOTT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE