From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Williams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Jul 13, 2018
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 13-286 SECTION R (E.D. La. Jul. 13, 2018)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 13-286 SECTION R

07-13-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS


ORDER AND REASONS

Defendant Christopher Williams has moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this collateral proceeding. For the following reasons, Williams's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

R. Doc. 476

R. Doc. 480.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 20, 2015, defendant Christopher Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit sex trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1594(c) and 1591(a). Williams waived his right to appeal and collaterally challenge his conviction and sentence, but he retained the right to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in an appropriate proceeding. The Court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Williams to 180 months imprisonment followed by ten years supervised release.

See R. Docs. 189, 412.

R. Doc. 189 at 2-3.

R. Doc. 412 at 2-3. --------

Williams has moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and now requests the appointment of counsel.

II. DISCUSSION

Unlike defendants in criminal proceedings and prisoners directly appealing judgments in criminal cases as a matter of right, prisoners mounting collateral attacks on their convictions do not have a right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). But a court has discretion to appoint counsel to a "financially eligible person" seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 when "the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2).

Williams has not demonstrated that his Section 2255 motion warrants the appointment of counsel. Williams's motion adequately presents his arguments, and it is not clear how the appointment of counsel would assist the Court in evaluating those arguments. The Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel in this case.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Williams's motion for appointment of counsel.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1 3 th day of July, 2018.

/s/_________

SARAH S. VANCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Williams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Jul 13, 2018
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 13-286 SECTION R (E.D. La. Jul. 13, 2018)
Case details for

United States v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Jul 13, 2018

Citations

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 13-286 SECTION R (E.D. La. Jul. 13, 2018)

Citing Cases

United States v. Woodruff

28 U.S.C. § 2255 when ‘the interests of justice so require.'” United States v. Williams, No. 13-286,…

United States v. Furlow

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). United States v. Declouet, 07-198, 2020 WL 708137, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 12,…