Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Petitioner prove his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and satisfy the Strickland test?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Did the Petitioner in his 2255 Motion and Rule 59(e) motion prove his claim that the the Petitioner's trial and appellate counsel's failure to object to the Petitioner's loss amount calculation, amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and thus violate his sixth-amendment constitutional right? Also, did the Petitioner prove his claim summarily and thus satisfy the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington? 2. Did the Petitioner in both his 2255 brief and Rule 59(e) motion, present sufficient claims and evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing and/or Certificate of Appealability from the District Court? di :
2018-12-03
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2018-11-07
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.
2018-10-19
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2018-10-01
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 22, 2018, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2018-09-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-09-04
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-08-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 27, 2018)