United States v. Norman Bond Lenox

MEMORANDUM

Norman Wayne Bond Lenox appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion to correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253 (a) and 2255(d).

When an attorney seeking post-conviction relief for his client “[is] compelled ... to prove his services to the. defendant were ineffective, he [is] burdened with a strong disincentive to engage in vigorous argument and examination, or to communicate candidly with his client. The conflict [is] not only actual, but likely to affect counsel’s performance.” United States v. Del Muro, 87 F.3d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir. 1996). A district court that becomes aware of such a conflict “should not be required to tolerate an inadequate representation of a defendant.” Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 162 , 108 S.Ct. 1692 , 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988) (quoting United States v. Dolan, 570 F.2d 1177, 1184 (3d Cir. 1978)). “Such representation not only constitutes a breach of professional ethics and invites disrespect for the integrity of the court, but it is also detrimental to the independent interest of the trial judge .to be free from future attacks over ... the fairness of…