govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-1_06-cr-00182-1

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS  
BEAUMONT DIVISION 
    
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
   
 
v.  
 
 
REGINALD STANLY STROTHER 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 CASE NUMBER 1:06-CR-182-MJT 
JUDGE MICHAEL TRUNCALE 
 
 
   
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
Defendant filed various pro se post-conviction motions.  [Dkt. 313, 315, 316.]  Pursuant to 
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District 
of Texas,  this motion was before United States Magistrate Judge Christine L. Stetson .  Judge 
Stetson issued a report with recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law  stating that 
Defendant’s motions should be denied.  [Dkt. 319.]  The Defendant objected to Judge Stetson’s 
findings arguing that his claims are valid under the “actual innocence” doctrine and he has shown 
“particularized proof of ir regularities” regarding the grand jury proceedings concerning his 
indictment justifying his request for grand jury materials.  [Dkt. 321.] 
I. Actual Innocence 
 Strother’s Motion to Correct for Violation of the Fifth Amendment and Supplement thereto 
request that his sentence be vacated for Fifth Amendment violations.  Judge Stetson recommended 
that these motions be denied as successive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and suggested that he 
file a motion for h abeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241  in his district of incarceration.  Strother 
argues in his objections that since he is proceeding under an “actual innocence” claim, he is not 
barred by section 2255.   
Case 1:06-cr-00182-MJT-CLS     Document 322     Filed 09/29/26     Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 
<pageID>
2 
 
Strother’s assertion of actual innocence does not alter the jurisdictional analysis.  A federal 
prisoner seeking to file a second or successive § 2255 motion must first obtain authorization from 
the appropriate court of appeals.  See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).  Section 2255(h)(1) expressly provides 
a mechanism for a successive motion based upon newly discovered evidence demonstrating factual 
innocence.  Strother has not shown that the Fifth Circuit has authorized him to pursue such a claim 
in this Court.  Moreover, Strother’s allegations concerning purported Fifth Amendment violations 
in the grand jury proceedings do not establish actual innocence.   “Actual innocence means ‘factual 
innocence, and not mere legal insufficiency.’ To prove actual innocence, the [movant] ‘must 
demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror 
would have convicted him.’”  United States v. Jones, 172 F.3d 381, 384 (5th Cir.1999).   Strother 
identifies no new reliable “factual” evidence regarding his lack of commission of the c rimes 
alleged in the Indictment demonstrating his factual innocence. Instead, his allegations challenge 
the legality of the proceedings resulting in his conviction.  The Court finds this objection without 
merit.   
II. Signature of Foreperson  
 As to his request for grand jury materials, Judge Stetson found that Strother did not identify 
any nonspeculative evidence that his Indictment was presented only to the foreperson or  failed to 
receive the concurrence required by Rule 6(f) requiring its dismissal.  Strother objects arguing that 
because his Indictment reveals the name of the grand jury foreperson (in contravention of law ), 
there is evidence that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment.   
Rule 6(c) states that the foreperson will sign all indictments.   As pointed out by Strother, 
some districts have a local rule that redacts th is signature prior to filing the indictment on the 
docket for public viewing.  United States v. Jordan, No. CA C-13-149, 2014 WL 2918576, at *3 
Case 1:06-cr-00182-MJT-CLS     Document 322     Filed 09/29/26     Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 
<pageID>
3 
 
(S.D. Tex. June 25, 2014); United States v. Kirkendoll, No. CR 19-0231, 2025 WL 650327, at *7 
(W.D. La. Feb. 26, 2025).  Rather than redact, the Eastern District of Texas Local Criminal Rule 
6 states that “the grand jury foreperson shall sign the indictment with initials rather than his or her 
whole name.  The foreperson will continue to sign the concurrence of the grand j ury using his or 
her whole name.”   This local rule was amended by General Order 06-17, which was signed on 
December 4, 2006 .  T he comment to the new ru le explained that the Judicial Conference had 
adopted an Internet privacy policy directing federal courts to avoid publishing juror names online 
and because unsealed indictments were being scanned into CM/ECF, using initials prevented the 
grand-jury foreperson’s full name from being publicly displayed.  Strother’s Indictment was filed 
on December 6, 2006, just two days after this change using the foreperson’s full name. [Dkt. 16.]  
The Indictment does not indicate the date the foreperson actually signed it.   
In any event, as stated abo ve, Federal Rule o f Criminal Procedure  6 requires the 
foreperson’s signature to the indictment, so the appearance of that si gnature on Strother’s 
Indictment as required is not evidence of any mal feasance.  Strother has not made the required 
showing for these documents.  In addition, t he Court agrees with Judge Stetson that Strother did 
not make a timely pretrial challenge under Rule 12(b)(3)(A)(v) regarding error in the grand jury 
proceedings.  Strother objects that he did not receive a copy of his Indictment until 2013; however, 
the record shows that Strother  appeared with counsel a t his arraignment on December 21, 20 06, 
and was read the charges and received a copy of the c harges.  [Dkt. 20.]  His objections on this 
point also lack merit.   
III. Conclusion 
The Court conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the parties’ filings 
and the applicable law.  See FED. R. CRIM. P. 59; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).  After careful 
Case 1:06-cr-00182-MJT-CLS     Document 322     Filed 09/29/26     Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 
<pageID>
4 
 
consideration, the Court finds the objections have no merit and that Judge Stetson correctly 
concluded that the motions should be denied .  Accordingly, Defendant’s objections are 
OVERRULED.  Judge Stetson’s findings, conclusions and analysis are correct, and her report is 
ADOPTED.  It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motions [Dkt. 313, 315, 316] are DENIED. 
____________________________ 
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge
SIGNED this 29th day of September, 2026.
Case 1:06-cr-00182-MJT-CLS     Document 322     Filed 09/29/26     Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight