United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge.
Frederick J. Smith, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this motion and a supporting memorandum under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. ("2255 Motion.") In his rambling and conclusory submission, Smith raises the following claims for relief:
Claim One: The Government violated Smith's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
Claim Two: The Government denied Smith due process "[b]y... Government's failure to assure authenticity of information offered by State of Virginia officers before agreeing to removal... from state to federal jurisdiction." (Mem. Supp. § 2255 Mot. 3, ECF No. 56.)
Claim Three: "The federal Government did not have lawful jurisdiction [o]ver this matter." (Id.)
Claim Four: The Government violated Smith's "4th Amendment protection against an illegal seizure." (Id.)
Claim Five: The Government denied Smith due process by "failure to conduct the investigation of facts necessary to confirm the veracity of state police information before proceeding to trial." (Id. at 5.)
Claim Six: The Government violated Smith's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. (Id. at 6.)
Claim Seven: The Government denied Smith due process "by the use of perjury to secure a conviction." (Id. at 9.)
Claim Eight: Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by:
(a) failing to obtain certain records that would demonstrate the Government was not credible (id. at 17-18);
(b) stipulating to the chain of custody for the lab testing of the marijuana (id. at 18);
(c) failing to file certain pretrial motions (id. at 18-19);
(d) "usurp[ing Smith's] right to testify" (id. at 19);
(e) "refus[ing] to examine the petitioner (id.);
(f) refusing to remove an "obviously partial juror from the jury, or declare a mistrial" (id.);
(g) failing to object to "Judge Williams's conduct" that "motivate(ed] the juror... to silence her expressions of partiality" (id.);
(h) apologizing to the jury (id. at 19-20);
(i) refusing to object to certain Government statements (id. at 20);
(j) giving weight to the Government's case (id. at 20-21);
(k) telling the jury to ignore Smith's testimony (id. at 21).
Claim Nine: Smith was denied due process by lack of meaningful appellate review due to errors in the transcript. (Id. at 22.)
The Government has responded. Smith has replied. The matter is ripe for disposition.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 24, 2008, a grand jury charged Smith with possession with intent to distribute marijuana (Count One), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count Two), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count Three). (Indictment 1-2, ECF No. 1.) At the time of the federal indictment, Smith was serving an active term of state imprisonment at the Riverside Regional Jail. On January 28, 2008, a federal agent filed a detainer with the Riverside ...