Capalbo v. United States, 1:10-cv-02563

Capalbo's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2255 was denied in the April 16, 2012 Report and Recommendation.
Capalbo moved to supplement the record with documents alleging government misrepresentations that affected due process.
An affirmation from Digilio dated April 4, 2012 was filed in support of Capalbo's petition.
The court considered the Motion to Supplement despite untimeliness to complete the record.
Capalbo argued new evidence showed pre-proffer discussions occurred after his prior attorney joined the case, affecting the alleged ineffective assistance claim.
The court upheld its prior conclusion that trial counsel's representation and Capalbo's ineffective-assistance claims remain without merit under the Strickland standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to grant the Motion to Supplement	Capalbo asserts new evidence merits supplementation.	Government and court treat the motion as untimely but still permissible to complete record.	Motion granted for record completeness despite untimeliness.
Whether Capalbo's ineffective assistance claim against trial counsel fails	Capalbo argues counsel's advice and investigation were deficient, affecting proffer decisions and testimony rights.	Fufidio's representation and investigation were constitutionally adequate; no prejudice shown.	Capalbo's ineffective assistance claim denied; prejudice not shown under Strickland.

Thomas v. Am., 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (general rule on objections/waiver and review)
Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, 596 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2010) (practice of extending deadlines and related review standards)
Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2003) (Second Circuit standards on procedural objections and review)
Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) (prejudice and procedural requirements in review)