Smith Pitterson v. United States

Background

Carlos Smith Pitterson filed a petition challenging his criminal proceeding. The opinion states that his arguments included a challenge to counsel’s decision not to raise a particular defense, sentencing arguments, and arguments about the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion does not identify the specific defense or otherwise provide the underlying criminal case’s details.

On September 11, 2023, the court received a second petition challenging subject-matter jurisdiction.

Rulings

After reviewing Pitterson’s objections from the magistrate judge’s recommendation from the beginning rather than deferring to the earlier review, the court overruled those objections and adopted the recommendation. It denied the petition with prejudice. The court agreed that counsel’s decision was objectively reasonable and that, even if the defense had been raised, Pitterson had not shown a reasonable probability that the proceeding’s result would have been different. The court also rejected his sentencing and jurisdictional arguments as meritless.

The court denied the second jurisdiction petition with prejudice as untimely, duplicative, and frivolous.

Appeal-related rulings

The court determined that Pitterson had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it did not issue a certificate of appealability. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith because the claims lacked an arguable basis in law or fact, and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

Disposition

The court denied the original petition with prejudice and denied the second jurisdiction petition with prejudice. It also denied a certificate of appealability and permission to proceed without paying filing fees.