All eight of Luellen's claims originate from a single statement contained in an Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrant ("Affidavit") signed by Special Agent Anthony Saler of the United States Secret Service ("SA Saler"). This Affidavit, which provided the probable cause for an arrest warrant against Luellen for aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, was submitted to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and filed in United States v. Luellen, 1:08-mj-266 (E.D. Va. Dkt. No. 2) on April 11, 2008. The thirteen-page Affidavit includes the following critical sentence:
Christian cannot satisfy any of the requirements of his Brady claim. With regard to whether the evidence at issue is favorable to him, there is no indication that an "ADB" extraction on TT10 would have recovered any deleted items whatsoever, let alone items favorable to him, and "fail[ure] to demonstrate beyond a mere possibility that the [favorable evidence] even existed" is fatal to a Brady claim. United States v. Caro, 733 F. App'x 651, 663 (4th Cir. 2018); see also Luellen v. United States, 2011 WL 4565348, at *2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2011). Similarly, with regard to whether the government suppressed the evidence at issue, Christian's argument would have required the government to conduct an "ADB" extraction on TT10 to determine whether any deleted items existed, and "Brady did not create" a "general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case."
“In particular, decisions concerning the calling of witnesses are matters of strategy left to the attorney, and ordinarily cannot constitute ineffective assistance.” Luellen v. United States, Nos. 1:08cr102, 1:09cv681, 2011 WL 4565348, at *5 (E.D.Va. Sept. 28, 2011) (O'Grady, J.) (citing Jones v. North Carolina, 547 F.2d 808 (4th Cir.1977)). In this case, the recordindicates that Mr. Sacks thoroughly investigated whether to challenge the drug amounts in the PSR because Mr. Sacks initially objected to such increased drug amounts, which suggests that he was fully aware of the issues concerning facts in the PSR gleaned from CHS 1. Pet'r's § 2255 Mot. at 32.
Plaintiff apparently ran one or more businesses in Northern Virginia, and is seemingly familiar with the ins and outs of federal litigation. U.S. v. Scott E. Luellen, No. 1:08–cr–102–LO–1(E.D.Va.); see also, Luellen v. U.S., No. 08–cr–102 (LO)/09–cv–681, 2011 WL 4565348 (E.D.Va. Sept. 28, 2011) (denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255), appeal dismissed,470 Fed.Appx. 151 (4th Cir.2012); writs denied,463 Fed.Appx. 177, 178 (4th Cir.2012); cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 550, 184 L.Ed.2d 358 (2012), rehng. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 925, 184 L.Ed.2d 716 (U.S.2013); see Luellen v. Gulick, et al., 1:10–cv–203 (N.D.W.V.);
Plaintiff apparently ran one or more businesses in Northern Virginia, and is seemingly familiar with the ins and outs of federal litigation. U.S. v. Scott E. Luellen, No. 1:08-cr-102 -LO-1( E.D.Va,); see also, Luellen v. U.S., No. 08-cr-102 (LO)/09-cv-681, 2011 WL 4565348 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2011) (denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255), appeal dismissed, 470 F. App'x 151 (4th Cir. 2012); writs denied, 463 F. App'x 177, 178 (4th Cir. 2012); cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 550 (2012), rehng. denied, 133 S.Ct. 925 (U.S. 2013); see Luellen v. Gulick, et ai, 1:10-cv-203 (N.D.W.V.); see also 2012 WL 1029577 (March 26, 2012); 2011 WL 7628537 (July 5, 2011); 2011 WL 2565268 (June 28, 2011); and 2011 WL 2259120 (June 8, 2011) (same). That notice, which is attached to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is not at all so limited in scope, and in fact advises the world that at a date and time certain, the Clark Will and Estate, and the distribution under them, would be confirmed (or not) by the Orphans' Court in Elk County, Pennsylvania.