From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Kelly

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
Mar 10, 2004
No. 04 C 236 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2004)

Opinion

No. 04 C 236

March 10, 2004


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


Petitioner first sought, pro se, various documents and transcripts, preparatory to filing a § 2255 petition, while his appeal was still pending. That motion was denied as premature, coincidentally on the same day his conviction was affirmed. He subsequently filed this action and renews his request

His request for transcripts requires a certification that the suit is not frivolous and that the transcript is needed to decide the issues presented. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). We turn, then, to the issues raised in his petition.

He raises three issues, all predicated on ineffective assistance of counsel. The first is, apparently, that his counsel possibly acquiesced in or failed to prevent a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, in that far more than thirty days elapsed between arrest and indictment. The second is that his counsel, at sentencing, failed to attack the amount of drugs calculation and the enhancement for the use of minors, and for being a leader. The third is that his appellate counsel failed to raise the Speedy Trial Act claim.

Most of the matters petitioner seeks have no relation to his claims and are sought, it appears, in hopes that something else will turn up. These include Items 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The only item that might possibly be helpful to petitioner Is transcript from three dates in 1999, item 2. Since we do not know what then transpired, we cannot conclude that the claim is frivolous or not frivolous, and the transcript is necessary to determine that. We will, therefore, authorize preparation of the transcript for review by the court and for transmission to petitioner if it provides any support for the claim. We should advise petitioner that, even were he successful on his claim, the best he could hope for is that the government would have to begin anew, and it would be able to use the same evidence as before, including petitioner's own statements to the extent indicated by the Court of Appeals. The motion is granted to the limited extent indicated and is otherwise denied.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Kelly

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
Mar 10, 2004
No. 04 C 236 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2004)
Case details for

U.S. v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff vs. PAUL KELLY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

Date published: Mar 10, 2004

Citations

No. 04 C 236 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2004)