United States District Court, D. Maryland
J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.
Walter Louis Ingram has filed this action under 28 U.S.C. §2255. The motion will be denied.
Ingram pled guilty and agreed to a sentence of 72 months. He complains that his trial counsel was ineffective in not conducting an adequate investigation and failing to suppress the wiretap evidence in the case. Ingram's claims in this respect are entirely conclusory and, as such, do not provide a basis for relief. See Nickerson v. Lee , 971 F.2d 1125, 1136 (4th Cir. 1992), abrog'd on other grounds , Yeasts v. Angelone , 166 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Thomas , 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3rd Cir. 2000); Wilson v. United States , 962 F.2d 996, 968 (11th Cir. 1992).
Ingram also complains that his counsel was ineffective in not explaining to him the meaning of the word "stipulating." Ingram complains that he does not know what the word "stipulating" meant. Assuming that to be true, it is clear from the record that Ingram admitted under oath that the ...