Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

r * Case 3:00-cr-00075-AWT Document 299 Filed 05/24/2006 Page 1 of 3
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT "Q·». (
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ' ` , _
r
KENNETH HAWKINS , ’" " Q -~_,, __ L
Petitioner, "['“’/
‘V· Criminal No. 3:OOCR75(AWT) = {
Civil N0. 3:O5CV1186(AWT) *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, _
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT Q
i
IIOIIOOIIOIIOOIIIIIOOOI I
H
INTRODUCTION Q _
Petitioner Kenneth Hawkins ("Pet1tloner" or "Hawkins") filed a Motion To Q
Vacate, Set Aside Or Correct His Sentence Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in this
court on February 2, 2005.[Doc #'s 268 and 269]. Hawkins than supplemented his
motion with a filing on July 25, 2005.[Doc # 271]. j
Hawkins raised four(4) issues in his proceedings, with the thrust of the E
issues being that (1) The "United States District Court" which sentenced Hawkins
lacked jurisdiction over his case, specifically:
(Issue 3) [
The United States Attorney agreed in 1ts response that "bistrict Court Of The
United States" shall have original jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. 5 3231) and expressly not
the "United States District Court" (28 U.S.C. 5 1331). Therefore, unless the governm nt =
can prove that Mr. Hawkins and or his co—defendants either (a) possessed marijuana,
(b) intended to distribute marijuana, (c) did distribute marijuana or conspired with
one another to do one or more of the above acts within the federal areas and or fe- I
deral properties located within the "United States District Courts" limited territori l
jurisdiction and furthermore prove by a "letter of acceptance"(by way of 40 U.S.C. § T
255) or other similar documentary evidence that the particular land in question in `
which the alleged act had taken place or were to take place were in fact under ex- · E
elusive or concurrent federal jurisdiction, otherwise the "Unlted States District
Courts" judgment must be voided for lack of jurisdiction.
I
I
5
1
QEEE§§§§§§§§§§£§;;;;;;;;;:i;E§¥;$?€i?iiiiiifi?iiiiii;
’ ‘’·r

' I
0 Case 3:00-cr-00075-AWT Document 299 Filed 05/24/2006 Page2of3 1
(Issue 4) R
Hawkins avers that the plea-agreement in which he had initially entered into E
with the United States government on February 9, 2001 was entered into unknowingly, I
involuntarily , intelligently and in mistake and must be void due to the fact that
the court failed to inform him of all_the essential elements of the charge for which
he was about to plead and of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable V
doubt in order to sustain a conviction. Specifically, the court failed to inform
Mr. Hawkins of the "jurisdictional element" of the offense he was pleading guilty.
In another words if Mr.I%mk1mSewould have been informed by the court that the governm nt
must prove that at least one of the conspirators committed an overt act in furtheranc Q
of the conspiracy charge within territorial jur1sd1ction[federal territory] Hawkins
would have never pleaded guilty but would have requested a trial. l
A. nrpmass * E
In this instant case, Hawkins believes that his case is ripe for adjudication Q
and hereby requests that his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 pending in this
court since February 2, 2005 to be adjudicated on its merits.
The ripeness doctrine functions to prevent federal courts through avoidance
of premature adjudication, ABBOTT LABORATORIES V. GARDNER, 387 U.S. 136, 148 87 S.
Ct. 1507. Hawkins as previously mentioned filed his motion for relief on February 2, I
2005, supplementing it with a filing on July 25, 2005, the government after numerous I
extensions of time reply on February 24, 2006, wherein Hawkins rebuttal the governmen s %
response on March 24, 2006. Therefore, all parties have had adequate opportunity to
present their sides of the story, issues and disputes. An adjudication of this case
will not be premature. This case is ripe for adjudication and is hereby requested I
and warranted. I I
I
I
I
..2.,. J

E ```` `—_—"`”_`““`1`
{ ‘ ~ W Case 3:00-cr-00075-AWT Document 299 Filed 05/24/2006 Page 3 of 3
Based, on the court records, files and the aforementioned, the Petitioner g
requests an adjudication of his Motion For Relief and or any other relief this
court deems appropriate and just.
Respectfully Submitted l
z ., Q
,· ! I
ennet 1 —Pro—Se I
Reg#0a8aa-07 —p¤¤m-210 ‘
Duluth Federal Prison Camp
P.O. Box 1000
Duluth MN 55814
E
Executed On This 15th Day Of May 2006 \
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kenneth Hawkins, hereby certify under the penalty of perjury that on
the last date given below, I deposited a true and correct copy of my MOTION FOR é
JUDGMENT in the Duluth Federal Prison Camps Legal Mail system with first class \
postage affixed to insure its proper delivery to:
i
Michael J. Gustafson !
Assistant United States Attorney
157 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Executed On This 15th Day Of May 2006

,//jienneth w 1
-3-