Opinion
4:21-CR-92
09-26-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CLARENCE LAMAR BUCK
ORDER
DEBRA M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 28, 2023, a federal jury found Clarence Lamar Buck guilty of four counts of distributing methamphetamine and one count of possessing a firearm as a felon. Doc. #94; see Doc. #39. Buck's sentencing hearing is currently set for September 27, 2023. Doc. #121. On or about August 21, 2023, Buck, who always has been represented by appointed counsel throughout these proceedings, filed a pro se motion “for a Order Request By the United States Justice Department to Investigate Several Matters Concerning His Criminal Federal Indictment” and “request[ing] a Full Investigation be done by the United States Justice Department because Violations of [his] Substantial and Constitutional Rights are at Stake as Well as his Life and Liberty.” Doc. #118. In support of such relief, Buck asserts:
The sentencing hearing was initially set for August 14, 2023, before United States Senior District Judge Neal B. Biggers. Doc. #112. Judge Biggers presided over this case until it was reassigned to the undersigned on August 14, 2023. Doc. #116.
The Federal Public Defender was initially appointed to represent Buck. See October 13, 2021, text order; Doc. #8. The Court subsequently appointed Buck three different attorneys each in substitution of the former. See Docs. #34, #60, #74. The last attorney appointed to represent Buck moved to withdraw on March 21, 2023 (a week before trial), but withdrawal was denied. Docs. #83, #86.
The motion is titled, “Motion for Order Request.” Doc. #118.
(1) [His] 4th Constitutional Amendment Right have been violated
(2) Ineffective Assistance Counsel and Ineffective Assistance Trial Counsel
(a) Fail to Call Proper Witnesses for [His] Trial
(b) Fail to File Proper Pre Trial Motions
(c) Fail to File Objections to Pre Sententence Investigation ReportId. at PagelD 362-63.
All spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors in the quoted text are contained in the pro se motion. See Doc. #118 at PageID 362-63.
To the extent Buck seeks relief from this Court based on claims of a Fourth Amendment violation and ineffective assistance of counsel, his bald and conclusory assertions are insufficient to warrant relief. See United States v. Hardnett, No. CR 17-161, 2023 WL 2702562, at *8 (M.D. La. Mar. 29, 2023) (conclusory implied claim of Fourth Amendment violation denied); Id. at *10 (“Mere conclusory allegations on a critical issue are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue.”) (citing United States v. Pineda, 988 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir. 1993)); Noble v. Dir., Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just., No. 2:18-cv-195, 2021 WL 3176029 (N.D. Tex. June 21, 2021) (“Simply making conclusory allegations of deficient performance and prejudice is not sufficient to meet the Strickland [ineffective assistance of counsel] test.”) (citing Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 282 (5th Cir. 2000)). For these reasons, Buck's pro se motion [118] is DENIED without prejudice.
At least one of Buck's assertions regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that objections to the presentence report were not filed on his behalf is patently inaccurate. See Doc. #113 (“Defendant's Objections to the Presentence Report” filed July 25, 2023).
And to the extent Buck, while represented by counsel, attempts to raise a constitutional violation claim based on something other than ineffective assistance of counsel, such is deemed an attempt at hybrid representation and will not be considered.
This ruling in no way means that if Buck's assertions were not conclusory he would be entitled to the requested relief.
SO ORDERED,