Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Duka v. United States

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

June 12, 2019

ELJVIR DUKA, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          OPINION

          ROBERT B. KUGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner, Eljvir Duka, is a federal prisoner. Previously, this Court denied petitioner's § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. Presently pending before this Court is petitioner's motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).[1] For the following reasons, petitioner's motion for relief from judgment will be denied.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The factual background giving rise to petitioner's federal convictions was previously discussed by this Court. (See ECF No. 40). Briefly, petitioner, along with his two brothers, Dritan Duka and Shain Duka, as well as Mohamed Shnewer and Serdar Tatar were convicted of conspiracy to murder members of the United States military amongst other charges after a lengthy trial in 2008. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed petitioner's judgment of conviction in 2011. See United States v. Duka, 671 F.3d 329 (3d Cir. 2011).

         Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. Among the claims raised in that motion were several ineffective assistance of counsel claims; they were: (1) denial of the right to testify; (2) failure to request a First Amendment jury instruction; (3) failure to object to expert testimony; (4) failure to request juror voir dire after juror reaction; (5) failure to argue that a conversation was admissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 803(3); (6) failure to request a hearing on a missing recording; and (7) failure to introduce a video recording.

         On September 30, 2015, this Court denied all of petitioner's claims, except for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim related to his purported denial of his right to testify. (See ECF Nos. 40 & 41). Thereafter, this Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on that claim. That claim was ultimately also denied on May 31, 2016. (See ECF Nos. 59 & 60).

         On February 6, 2017, the Third Circuit denied a certificate of appealability arising from this Court's decision to deny petitioner's § 2255 motion. (See ECF No. 65).

         Two years later, petitioner filed the instant motion for relief from judgment. (See ECF No. 66). In the motion, petitioner claims as follows:

Malice aforethought is a necessary element of the crime of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of 18 USC § 1117. But, at trial in this matter, the Court not only failed to instruct the jury as to malice aforethought, but, it affirmatively instructed the jury that the jury did not have to find malice aforethought. As Duka thus currently stands convicted of conspiracy to commit involuntary manslaughter, a non-existent offense, Duka is actually innocent, and, both trial counsel, and, post-conviction counsel, rendered ineffective assistance, making relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) appropriate.

(ECF No. 66 at 3) (internal citations omitted). In his brief, petitioner makes clear that he is attempting to bring two claims; namely that the indictment charged him with a non-existence offense of involuntary manslaughter because it did not charge malice aforethought and that the jury instructions failed to instruct the jury on malice aforethought. As a basis for bringing this Rule 60(b)(6) motion, petitioner asserts ineffective assistance of counsel claims against his § 2255 counsel for: (1) failing to raise the issue of trial counsel's failure to move to dismiss the indictment because the indictment failed to charge malice aforethought; and (2) failing to raise the issue of trial counsel's failure to object the improper jury instructions.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         As the Supreme Court has explained:

Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence. Rule 60(b)(6) ... permits reopening when the movant shows “any ... reason justifying relief from the operation of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.