United States District Court, D. Minnesota
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DONOVAN W. FRANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Petitioner-Defendant Tony
Terrell Robinson's (“Petitioner-Defendant”)
pro se Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment filed
on September 13, 2017. (Doc. No. 139.) Petitioner-Defendant
has moved this Court, pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to modify its August 23, 2017
judgment (Doc. No. 138). Petitioner-Defendant is requesting
that this Court rescind its August 23, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion and Order (“August 23, 2017 Order”),
(Doc. No. 137), denying his § 2255 motions, (Doc. Nos.
121, 128), and to permit him to file a response to the June
29, 2017 Government's Memorandum in Opposition to
Defendant's Motion to Accept Untimely § 2255 Motion
(Doc. No. 130). The government opposes
Petitioner-Defendant's motions. (Doc. No. 142.) The Court
granted Petitioner-Defendant's motion for an extension of
time to respond to the government's reply, (Doc. No.
143), and received Petitioner-Defendant's reply to the
government's memorandum in opposition to his motion for
reconsideration on January 8, 2018 (Doc. No. 145).
Court will not repeat the detailed background it set forth in
its August 23, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 137). It incorporates
that Order at this time to this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
the Court notes that on September 13, 2017
Petitioner-Defendant filed a motion asking this Court to
reconsider its August 23, 2017 Order denying his § 2255
motions. (Doc. No. 139.) On the same date,
Petitioner-Defendant also filed a pro se Affidavit
in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment. (Doc.
No. 140.) Petitioner-Defendant asserted that he was making
his motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
stated, the Court stands by its decision, including its
findings and conclusions set forth in its August 23, 2017
Order, which is attached hereto as Attachment A.
with or without the response of the government at this time
or prior to the Court's decision in its August 23, 2017
Order, the Court's decision, then and now, remains
exactly the same.
scrutiny of the record before this Court, including all
submissions by Petitioner-Defendant, entirely forecloses any
notion that Petitioner-Defendant received ineffective
assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington
either at the trial level or at the appellate level. 466 U.S.
668 (1984). In fact, the Court would go one step further and
state that not only was there not any actual prejudice to
Petitioner-Defendant, but, based upon the entire record
before this Court, the Court cannot envision any evidence
that it could have received or excluded that would have
changed in any way Petitioner-Defendant's sentencing.
Importantly, that remains the case, given the Court's
careful scrutiny of all transcripts and the entire record in
this matter, and it remains the case, as the Court stated in
its August 23, 2017 Order with respect to
Petitioner-Defendant's seventh claim which, even though
untimely, the Court addressed the merits relating to his
trial counsel's failure to advise him to seek release on
bond, pending trial, rather than agree to remain in custody.
As the Court stated in its August 23, 2017 Order:
[The Court] sentenced Petitioner-Defendant to 84-months'
imprisonment after taking into account the time he had spent
in custody after charges were brought against him in the case
before this Court. (ST 42-44, 55-58; see ST 57
(“I built that in.”).) This Court, as it noted
during the sentencing hearing, would have sentenced
Petitioner-Defendant to more than 84 months if it had not
taken that into account.
(Doc. No. 137 at 12.)
on the record before the Court, including all submissions by
Petitioner-Defendant, the Court continues to find and
conclude that there is no reason for the Court to further
explore any credibility issues with respect to
Petitioner-Defendant's claims. A § 2255 motion can
be dismissed without a hearing when: (1) defendant's
allegations, if accepted as true, would not entitle him to
relief; or (2) the allegations cannot be accepted as true
because they are contradicted by the record, are inherently
incredible, or are conclusions, rather than statements of
fact. Delgado v. United States, 162 F.3d 981, 983
(8th Cir. 1998). ...