Opinion
No. C02-5599FDB
January 23, 2003
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S sec 2241 MOTION AND OTHER RELATED MOTIONS
Petitioner is alleging claims in this petition that are similar to those raised by his codefendants, Gonzales and Kim. The Court finds them no more persuasive now than they were then. As to Roberta Cabral's testimony, the failure to disclose one transcript does not provide a basis for setting aside the conviction in the face of all the other evidence.
The allegation that the Government seized 11 diskettes from Petitioner Mew's home and then failed to produce the exculpatory material is without merit. The Government allowed defendants to inspect and copy all items seized from Petitioner Mew's home. Moreover, without explaining how it would be exculpatory, Mew merely lists general categories of information contained on the disks (names, telephone number of witnesses, banks, bank accounts, etc.).
Petitioner asserts that a black folder, which contained exculpatory evidence, was also seized but not produced. The same reasoning as to the 11 diskettes referred to above applies as to the black folder.
Petitioner Mew also points to a discrepancy between the number of boxes of material produced to the defense (17 boxes) compared with the number of boxes that the Government now has (50). The Government explains what the 50 boxes contain (sentencing documents, trial transcripts, witness files, exhibits, grand jury materials) The assertion of this discrepancy does not establish a Brady violation
The amendment to the Money Laundering Guideline does not apply retroactively. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a), and see United States v. Szur, 289 F.3d 200, 216 n. 9 (2nd Cir. 2002).
Petitioner Mew also moves for joinder of co-defendants Jack Gonzales, Morreon Rude and Charles Andrews as parties to this Section 2241 motion. No co-defendants have joined in this motion and Jack Gonzales has already submitted and this Court has denied his Section 2255 motion. A joinder in this motion would constitution a successive motion, requiring permission from the Ninth Circuit to proceed.
NOW, THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Petitioner Mew's Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 1)is DENIED;
2. Petitioner's Motion for Expedited ruling on his motion for immediate release and for order enjoining Respondent from Transferring Petitioner (Doc. #11) is DENIED;
3. Petitioner's Motion for Immediate Release (Doc. #2) is DENIED;
4. Petitioner's Motion for Joinder of Parties (Doc. #9) is DENIED;
5. Petitioner's Motion for Order Compelling Production and for Sanctions (Doc. #12) is DENIED.