Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

’ Case 3:00-cr-00075-AWT Document 296 Filed O4/O3/2006 Page 1 of 3 Q}
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT couur I
. ·EoE THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT r_¤“F ,U_ggi _
5 *]’[1`_, ]
KENNETH HAWKINS,
P€““1'°“°”’ Qii]{ei» Til W Q?
-V— Case Number(s) 3:00CR75 `33
3:05CV1l86
UNITED STATES or AMERICA,
Respondent, SECOND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
28 u.s.c. 5 2255 MOTION TO vAcATE
SET—ASIDE on CORRECT SENTENCE
In November of 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion For Return Of Property in
this Court. The government finally responded to this Motion on March lh, 2006,
objecting in granting the Petitioners request for the return of his property in
question($73,483.27 the DEA seized from the BankBoston).
The governments thrust in objecting to the Return Of Property Motion filed
by Petitioner is that, the Petitioner was afforded the proper opportunity to object `
to the forfeiture and attempted to obtain the return of the subject funds but losted. 1
But nonetheless, the governments response pin points to a fact that may result in I
Petitioners Plea-Agreement falling and being void, since this written plea agreement §
specifically does not utter a single word of the $73,483.27, the DEA seized from
the Petitioners BankBoston Account. I
A
T
I
T






_ Case 3:00-cr-00075-AWT Document 296 Filed O4/O3/2006 Page 2 of 3 I
I When the Petitioner entered into his guilty plea, he was under the presumption
that the DEA would not move to forfeit his BankBoston account. Since this money can
be verify as legal money. The following was the agreement between the Petitioner
and the government.
The defendant further agrees not to oppose the criminal, civil and ad-
5 ministrative forfeiture of property owned or possessed by him, which
property was used to facilitate his drug trafficking. This agreement en—
compasses all of the things of value that heretofore have been seized from
the defendant, including the cash that was seized from his residence, 706
5 Margaret Henry Road, Sterling, Connecticut, the 1979 Peterbilt tractor
bearing serial number 099856, the Caterpillar Model 988B bearing serial
number 50W06140, and the portable crushing plant bearing serial number
2055880.
? The Petitioner entered his guilty plea believing that his BankBoston account
Q would not be moved on based on the abovemention agreement since as previously mentioned
l the written agreement doesn't utter a single word of forfeiting Petitioners BankBoston
j Account. Ambiguous written plea—agreement are interpreted against the government.
’ SANTOBELLO V. NEW` YORQL 404 U.S. 257(1971). The Petitioners presumption before
entering into his guilty plea with the government, was that the DEA nor any other
2 government official would move to forfeit his BankBoston account, since it was not
a made from any illegal activities or drug profits which could be verify by the Petitioner.
I It is the canon of statutory construction that the inclusion of certain pro—
E vions implies the exclusion of others. The doctrine inclusio unius est exclusia
alterius informs the court to exclude from operation those items not included in a
l list of elements that are given affect expressly by the statutory language. IN RE TMI,
67 F.3d. 1119(quoting FILLIAMS V. WOHLEGEMUTH, 540 F. 2d. 163; UNITED STATES V. I
Q MCQUILKIN, 78 F. 3d. 105. I
. I
-2.- I

X Case 3:00-cr-OOO75-AWT Document 296 Filed O4/O3/2006 Page 3 of 3
i Therefore, accordingly, the Petitioner asserts here that he would
0 have never entered into a guilty plea with the government if he new that the
§ Government was going to move to forfeit his BankBoston Account. Therefore, the
- plea-agreement herein must be null and voided on grounds that the Petitioner
entered into the plea—agreement unknowingly, unintelligently and involuntarily
Q and by mistake, since the Petitioner could have not read the United States Attorneys
E mind as what was not listed on the written plea—agreement was construed to be.
§ Based on the aforemention, the Petitioner respectfully request for Leave To
g Amend his current 2255 Motion pending in this Honorable Court with this issue as
g justice so requires. SANDERS V. UNITED STATES, 10 L. Ed. 2d. 148(1963).
E
é Respectfully S bmitte E
E —— enneth Ha i ro-Se l
E Reg#0484 07 -Dorm-210
g Duluth Federal Prison Camp 1
P.o. Box 1000
Q Duluth MN 55814 Q
5 i
E Executed On This 23rd Day Of March 2006
Q CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
E
i I, Kenneth Hawkins hereby certify under the penalty of perjury that on K
E the last date given below, I deposited a true and correct copy of my SECOND
E MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND in the Duluth Federal Prison Camps legal mail system
g with first class postage affixed to insure its proper delivery to:
i Assistant United States Attorneys Office
{ For The United States District Court
Q Of Connecticut
i 650 Main Street
I Hartford Connecticut 06103
é Executed On This 23rd Day Of March 2006
E 9
Q fenneth /s" ___. X
..3..