MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Steven Snodgrass's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). The Government has responded to the motion (Doc. 17), and Snodgrass has replied to that response (Doc. 20). The Court also considers Snodgrass's motions seeking an unredacted copy of his First Revised Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR"), his Initial PSR and excerpts of his counsel's objections (Docs. 2, 6 & 7), and his motion for an order directing the Bureau of Prisons to return to him unspecified documents sent by the Court and confiscated from him as contraband (Doc. 21).
On February 23, 2010, a jury found the petitioner guilty of one count of knowingly attempting to receive child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1) (Count 1) and two counts of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) (Counts 2 and 3). The Court sentenced the petitioner to serve 360 months in prison - 240 months on Count 1 followed by 120 months on Counts 2 and 3. The petitioner appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which on February 18, 2011, affirmed the Court's judgment. United States v. Snodgrass, 635 F.3d 324 (7th Cir. 2011). Snodgrass did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
In his pending § 2255 motion, the petitioner raises the following claims:
1. a. Double Jeopardy Clause violation for multiple convictions and punishments for a single offense (the two possession charges), see United States v. Polouizzi, 564 F.3d 142, 154-56 (2d Cir. 2009);
b. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to make the foregoing double jeopardy argument at the trial and appellate level;
2. Ineffective assistance of counsel for:
a. Filing late objections and failing to object because a presentence investigation report ("PSR") addendum was filed fewer than seven days before sentencing in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(g);
b. Failing to object to the PSR with an effective argument;
c. Failing to object at sentencing to hearsay evidence not subject to cross-examination in violation of the Confrontation Clause;
d. Failing to object at sentencing to incomplete and unrelated evidence that should not have counted toward relevant conduct;
e. Failing to present evidence at sentencing to challenge the credibility of witnesses giving statements in the PSR;
f. Failing to hire an expert psychological forensic examiner to ask ...