Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Bodkin v. United States

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

January 8, 2015

EDWARD LEE BODKIN, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUSAN RUSS WALKER, Chief Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on a pro se motion by Edward Lee Bodkin ("Bodkin") to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 8, 2012, Bodkin pled guilty under a plea agreement to one count of receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). Following a sentencing hearing on July 10, 2012, the district court sentenced Bodkin to 168 months in prison. Bodkin's plea agreement contained a waiver provision whereby he relinquished the right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence except on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. He took no direct appeal.

On July 19, 2012, Bodkin filed this § 2255 motion, asserting the following claims:

1. His counsel rendered ineffective assistance by:
(a) refusing his requests to "see detailed discovery";
(b) failing to prepare him to address the district court at sentencing; and
(c) using "degrading and inflammatory language" in his sentencing memorandum.
2. The federal prosecutor engaged in misconduct by relying on a "derogatory profile" of him created by the Elmore County Sheriff's Department and the state prosecutor's office.

Doc. No. 1 at 14-16.[1]

After consideration of Bodkin's § 2255 motion, the submissions supporting and opposing the motion, and the record, the court concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not required and that, under Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts, the § 2255 motion should be denied.

II. DISCUSSION

A. General Standard ...


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.