Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Mangram v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division

July 6, 2015

ANTONIO MARQUETTE MANGRAM. Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. No. CR612-018

ORDER

G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

Antonio Mangram moves the Court to reconsider its denial of his request to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and for an evidentiary hearing. Docs. 8 (letter/motion to amend and for hearing); 11 (order denying motion); 12 & 14 (motions to reconsider). He argues that the Court misread his motion to allege that (now former) Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Cameron Ippolito's romantic involvement with a federal agent infected his trial. Doc. 14 at 3. Although the motion clearly alleges that Ippolito acted inappropriately, upon a closer reading the Court acknowledges that Mangram did not actually attempt to connect to his case a well-publicized affair between her and an ATF agent.

Instead - and as the government acknowledged in its response to Mangram's letter/motion, doc. 8 - Mangram used AUSA Ippolito's misconduct with the ATF agent to insinuate that she in prosecutorial, not sexual, misconduct with the DEA agents involved in his case. See doc. 8 at 2. He also alleged that Ippolito allowed an improper sentencing enhancement "to be utilized" by the Court.

The government, meanwhile, does not oppose leave to amend. So, the Court GRANTS IN PART Mangram's motion for reconsideration. Docs. 12, 14. Within 14 days of the date this Order is served, he may amend his § 2255 motion to add two claims: that AUSA Ippolito (1) committed "improper conduct... with regard to... actions undertaken in connection with other agencies (DEA for example)"; and (2) "knowingly allowed an improper enhancement to be utilized by the Probation Office and District Court." Doc. 14 at 3. The Court, however, DENIES Mangram's request for an evidentiary hearing. Nothing he's alleged remotely suggests one is necessary at this juncture. See Rosin v. United States, 786 F.3d 873, 877 (11th Cir. 2015) evidentiary hearing).

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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