Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sandford v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Delta Division

September 25, 2017

BOBBIE LOUIS SANDFORD PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT Civil Action No. 3:15cv190-LG

          ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

          LOUIS GUIROLA, JR. CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         BEFORE THE COURT are the following Motions filed by the petitioner Bobbie Louis Sandford:[1] Motion [43] for Order Compelling Response to Request to Produce Legal Documents, Motion [49] for Bail Pending Appeal, Motion [50] to Appoint Counsel, Motion [51] to Amend Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Motion [52] for Bond, Motion [53] for Subpoena, Motion [60] for Bond, to be Released from Prison, and for Evidentiary Hearing, Motion [61] for Attorney Ross Barnett to Clear Sandford's Record, Motion [64] for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, Motion [68] to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and Motion [75] to Expedite. After reviewing the Motions, the record in this matter, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motions should be denied.

         BACKGROUND

         On October 17, 2012, Sandford agreed to plead guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering pursuant to a written plea agreement with the Government. He was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Sandford appealed the sentence, but the Fifth Circuit affirmed. He then filed a Motion [44] Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. In conjunction with his 2255 Motion, Sandford filed numerous Motions seeking miscellaneous relief.

         DISCUSSION

         I. MOTION [43] FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSE TO REQUEST TO PRODUCE LEGAL DOCUMENTS

         In this Motion, Sandford asks the Court to compel his former attorney to produce all legal documents related to the criminal prosecution to enable Sandford to file a 2255 Motion. Sandford claims that he requested these documents from his former attorney but received no response to the request. However, Sandford has subsequently filed a letter sent by his former attorney that stated that a copy of the case file was enclosed. (Letter, ECF No. 59-1). Therefore, this Motion is denied as moot.

         II. MOTIONS [49, 52, 60] FOR BOND

         In three separate Motions, Sandford asks the Court to grant him bond pending consideration of his 2255 Motion. In a separate opinion, this Court has found that Sandford's 2255 Motion should be denied. As a result, the Court finds that Sandford's Motion for Bond should also be denied.

         III. MOTION [50] TO APPOINT COUNSEL

         Sandford asks the Court to appoint him an attorney, because he is a pauper and he has presented meritorious issues in his 2255 Motion. A court may appoint counsel “for any financially eligible person who. . . is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28” when it determines that the interests of justice so require. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Furthermore, Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts provides that the Court must appoint an attorney to represent a petitioner if it concludes that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Sandford is well-educated, having received a degree from a four-year university, and although his 2255 Motion was found to be without merit, Sandford demonstrated that he was capable of pursuing his 2255 Motion without the assistance of counsel. Furthermore, the Court found that there was no need for an evidentiary hearing in this matter. Therefore, the Court finds that Sandford's Motion to Appoint Counsel should be denied.

         IV. MOTION [51] TO AMEND MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Sandford seeks permission to amend his Motion to Vacate, because there were typographical errors in the original Motion. However, he did not provide the proposed amended motion to the Court. Therefore, this Motion is denied.

         V. MOTION [53] FOR SUBPOENA

         Sandford asks the Court to subpoena Chief Judge Sharion Aycock, her husband Randy Aycock, Sandford's brother-in-law Robert Cook, and Sandford's sister Emma Cook to testify at an evidentiary hearing concerning whether Chief Judge Aycock should have recused herself due to her friendship and contact with Mr. Cook. For the reasons stated in this Court's separate opinion denying Sandford's 2255 Motion, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing and the testimony of these ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.