Opinion
No. 3:00cr0014 AS.
May 3, 2007
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This court takes full judicial notice of the record in this case and takes particular note of the proceedings on the plea of guilty of this defendant, now petitioner. It is also to be noted that his sentence was subject to a downward departure under 5K1.1 filed by the United States. The sentencing, as reflected in the written memorandum was imposed on or about February 16, 2000. The plea agreement and the sentencing dealt quite specifically was a part of subsection 9(p) of defendant's plea agreement. This defendant was also sworn and testified under oath.
This court took the trouble to deal specifically and directly with this defendant with regard to the aforesaid waivers. These waivers have been the subject of consideration by the Court of Appeals in this circuit. See Bridgman v. United States, 229 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2000). See also Jones v. United States, 106 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 1999). United States v. Williams, 184 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Gibson, 356 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2004). Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not an effective device to get around the aforesaid waivers. Neither does Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) permit such.
This court is mandated to greatly indulge pro se plaintiffs, including defendants in criminal cases. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). See also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993), Smith v. Fairman, 862 F.2d 630 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1008 (1989), and Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139 (7th Cir. 1988). Giving the matter serious consideration, and looking at the relevant authorities, this court now DENIES the aforesaid pro se pleading filed on February 8, 2007 and responded to by the United States on May 1, 2007. IT IS SO ORDERED.