IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NIGEL MACAYA BROADUS, ) ) Civil Action No. 19-266 Petitioner, ) ) Related to: Crim. Action No. 17-282 v. ) ) Judge Cathy Bissoon UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER

Petitioner having not timely responded to the Court’s Miller Notice (Doc. 58), his Petition will be considered “as filed.” See id. As to the merits, for the reasons stated by the government in opposition (Docs. 53 & 56), which are incorporated by reference herein, the Petition will be denied. Petitioner claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a vehicle-stop, on April 25, 2017, for lack of reasonable suspicion. As the government highlights, Petitioner pleaded guilty to offenses well-predating the traffic stop, and the sentence imposed would – in all likelihood − have remained within Guideline-range even had the traffic stop not occurred. See Doc. 53 at 1-2 (noting that the parties agreed on a below-Guideline range sentence, pursuant to Criminal Rule 11(c)(1)(C), which was accepted by the Court). More importantly, Petitioner has failed to show that his putative suppression-challenge is meritorious; or that, but-for his counsel’s alleged error, he would not have pleaded guilty. U.S. v. Petrusky,

, *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2017) (citing and quoting binding legal authority). None of Petitioner’s arguments on the merits are convincing,1 and the Petition (Doc. 50) is DENIED.2 No certificate of appealability will issue because jurists of reason would not find the Court’s conclusions debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 27, 2019 s\Cathy Bissoon Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge

cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):

Nigel Macaya Broadus USMS 38663-068 Allenwood U.S. Penitentiary Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. Box 3000 White Deer, PA 17887

cc (via ECF email notification):

All Counsel of Record

1 The government’s timeliness objection, as relates to the new arguments advanced in Petitioner’s filing at Doc. 54, is well taken. See Doc. 56 at 2-3. The arguments also fail on the merits for the reasons explained by the government. See id. at 3-5.

2 An evidentiary hearing is unnecessary because the filings of record show that Petitioner is not entitled to relief.