United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
J. HAZEL United States District Judge
December 16. 2014. Petitioner John David White was sentenced
to 248 months in prison after a jury found
him guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine and heroin, possession with intent to distribute
heroin and cocaine, maintaining a drug-involved premises, and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime. ECF No. 72. On January 5. 2017. White filed a Habeas
Corpus Motion to Vacate Indictment ("Motion to
Vacate") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. which is
currently pending before the Court. ECF No.
1 le has since supplemented his Motion with additional
briefings and exhibits. ECF No. 146; ECF No. 158: ECF No.
159. Respondent. United States of America, filed a Response
brief. ECF No. 164. and White filed a Reply brief. ECF No.
170. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D.
Md. 2016). For the following reasons. White's Motion to
Vacate is denied.
Factual Background 
28, 2013. law enforcement intercepted and opened a suspicious
crate shipment. ECF No. 164 at 2.Pursuant to a
search warrant, officers opened the crate and found more than
two kilograms of cocaine, in the form of two bricks, hidden
inside a toaster oven. Id. The officers put the
cocaine back in the crate, in order to investigate the
intended delivery location. On May 29, 2013. a freight
shipping company delivered the crate to Cheverly Self
Storage. Id. The delivery driver put the crate in
front of Storage Unit 4020. which was leased to White.
Id. Later on May 29th, White arrived at the storage
unit, unlocked it. pushed the crate inside, and closed the
unit. Id. at 3. Officers took him into custody as he
was attempting to leave the storage facility. Id.
After waiving his Miranda rights. White spoke to the
officers and admitted that he owned the storage unit.
Id. In the early morning hours of May 30. 2014. the
officers obtained search warrants for White's storage
unit, vehicle, and residence. Id. They found
shipping materials, a foil wrapper, digital scales, measuring
spoons which had heroin residue on them, and 185 grams of
heroin. Id. In his home, the officers found large
amounts of cash, a pistol and bullets, and additional bags
and scales which tested positive for heroin residue.
Id. at 4.
trial. White raised the issue of a discrepancy in the search
warrant and charging document that were issued for him. which
were signed by Corporal Jones, and moved to suppress the
results of the searches. The charging document and statement
of probable cause both are dated May 29, 2013. and time
stamped "18:25." ECF No. 158-1. The documents
describe the search that officers performed of White's
storage unit, although the search warrant was not obtained
until the early morning hours of May 30, 2014. See
Id. at 4, White argued that this indicated that officers
had searched his storage unit and vehicle on May 29th. before
they obtained a search warrant. At the pretrial motions
hearing. Officers Margulis and Ermer testified regarding the
search of White's property. Both officers were present at
White's storage unit when he was stopped by law
enforcement on May 29, 2013. ECF No. 98 at 6. 39. Both
officers testified that no one searched White's property
until a search warrant was obtained around 1:15 am on May 30.
2013. Id. at 10. 46-47. Regarding the date on the
charging document and statement of probable cause. Officer
Margulis testified that this was produced through an
automated system, which transferred the times and dates from
an individual's arrest report to the statement of
charges. Id. at 16. Therefore, the descriptive
content on the charging document and statement of probable
cause may postdate the date and time stamp on the document,
where additional details were added at a later time.
Titus denied White's pretrial motion to
suppress, finding Officers Margulis and Ermer to be
"coherent, rational, [and] credible." Id.
at 74. He credited their testimony that "the search of
the storage locker did not take place until after 1:00 in the
morning" after the officers had received a search
warrant. Id. at 83. Judge Titus deemed the date
discrepancy of one day as "such a minor matter" and
denied White's motion to suppress. Id. at 85. At
trial. White again argued to the jury that his storage unit
had actually been searched on May 29. 2013. ECF No. 124 at
181. In addition to Officers Margulis and Ermer's
testimony, the jury also heard from Corporal Jones, who had
completed and signed the charging document, who testified
that the date and time stamps on the charging document were
automatically generated when the booking process was
initiated, and did not mean that all events described on the
document occurred prior to the date and time stamps. ECF No.
131 at 103-105. The jury found White guilty on all counts.
ECF No. 71.
December 16. 2014, the Court sentenced White to 248 months of
imprisonment. ECF No. 116. White appealed his sentence, which
was affirmed on February 10, 2016. ECF No. 133. Since then.
White has filed a number of motions with the Court, in an
attempt to vacate his conviction and procure a new trial. The
majority of his arguments overlap across these various
motions. On September 16. 2016. White filed a Motion for
Leave to File for a New Trial. ECF No. 135. On December 19,
2016. he filed a Motion for Default Judgment regarding his
previous motion. ECF No. 141. On January 5. 2017, he filed a
Habeas Corpus Motion to Vacate Indictment. ECF No. 143. which
he supplemented on January 17. ECF No. 146. May 10. ECF No.
158, and May 24, 2017. ECF No. 159. He also filed additional
Motions for Default Judgment on May 5 and May 8. 2017. ECF
No. 156. ECF No. 157. The Government filed an opposition to
White's motions on June 16. 2017, ECF No. 164. to which
White replied. FCF No. 170.
various motions, White repeatedly raises the same arguments
that his Fourth. Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were
violated. First, he argues that the Complaint and warrant
which the Government relied on was based on the
"perjured testimony" of Corporal Jones and
Margulis. E.g., ECF No. 135-1 at 5: ECF No. 143 at
5; ECF No. 159. Second, he argues that the Government
withheld Jenks and Bradymaterial by failing to
produce the identity of an "anonymous third party"
who informed Corporal Jones that "a warrant was issued
incident to White's arrest." E.g., ECF No.
135-1 at 12-13. Third, in his Reply brief White raises a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his
trial attorney did not adequately represent him by failing to
object to the evidence provided by Jones at trial, and by
failing to call Jones to testify at a May 2014 motions
hearing. ECF No. 170 at 3, 8. White also argues that he asked
his attorney to file a motion to suppress evidence seized
from his storage locker, but that his attorney refused to do
so. claiming that the motion "would or could not be
successful." and that the attorney "became angry
and shut down and refused to speak or assist me legally with
my case." Id. at 7. furthermore. White argues
that each of his attorneys has refused to argue that his
Fifth Amendment rights were violated "due to the charges
this case is predicated off of are tainted with perjured
statements and the charges are false." Id. at
10. Finally. White argues that he is entitled to default
judgment in his favor, because the Government did not timely
respond to his motions. Kg., ECF No. 141: ECF No.
156: ECF No. 157.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
order to be entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. a
petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
"the sentence was imposed in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court
was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the
sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by
law." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); see also United
States v. Moore. 993 F.2d 1541 (4th Cir. 1993)
(unpublished) (citing Vanater v. Boles. 377 F.2d 898
(4th Cir. 1967)). Aprose petitioner is. of course,
entitled to have his arguments reviewed with appropriate
consideration. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147.
1151-53 (4th Cir. 1978). Where, however, a § 2255
petition, along with the files and records of the case,
conclusively shows the petitioner is not entitled to relief,
a hearing on the motion is unnecessary and the claims raised
therein may be dismissed summarily. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).