United States v. Webb

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Roberson

    No. 11-40078-02-JAR (D. Kan. Aug. 27, 2018)

    Accordingly, Roberson falls short of demonstrating counsels' performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness for failing to challenge Count Three either before trial or on appeal. United States v. Webb, No. 11-40078-1-JAR, 2013 WL 5966135, at *1-2 (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2013) (discussing Fowler v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2045, 2052 (2011)). United States v. Phillips, 869 F.2d 1361, 1364 (10th Cir. 1988).

  2. United States v. Dixon

    191 F. Supp. 3d 603 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    s addressed jointly by the Drug Enforcement Administration with the Baltimore City Police Department"); United States v. Tyler , 35 F.Supp.3d 650, 655–56 (M.D.Pa.2014) (finding that "a reasonable juror could conclude that there was a reasonable likelihood that [the victim] would have made at least one communication to a federal law enforcement officer" where, in pertinent part, (1) the head of the state task force—who had interviewed the victim—was a "law enforcement officer" due to his role as an "adviser and consultant with the" Drug Enforcement Administration; (2) this head of the state task force provided testimony that he reviewed cases to determine whether federal involvement was required and, at the time of the murder, he intended to refer the victim to the Drug Enforcement Administration "for use as a witness;" and (3) a Drug Enforcement Administration agent testified that a hypothetical witness who could provide the victim's testimony "would absolutely be a federal witness"); United States v. Webb , No. 11–40078–01–JAR, 2013 WL 5966135, at *1 (D.Kan. Nov. 8, 2013) (finding that the "reasonable likelihood" standard was satisfied where (1) the defendant was engaged in "widespread drug trafficking with a detailed organizational structure that would make him the target of a federal, rather than state investigation;" (2) "[a] local officer ... testified that local authorities, from the outset, intended to investigate the case as a drug conspiracy and turn it over to the federal authorities;" (3) the defendant "was ultimately charged with a federal offense for violating drug laws;" (4) "two months before the murder, an informant contacted the" Drug Enforcement Administration "to report [the defendant's] drug activity," although the Drug Enforcement Administration did not commence an investigation at that time; and (5) a Drug Enforcement Administration agent "testified that if the victim wanted to offer further information about [the defendant's] drug activity, she would not have been turned away"); cf.Aguero v. United States , 580 Fed.Appx. 748, 752