Fuchs v. USA

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSEPH ALBERT FUCHS, III,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-CV-00006-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
Petitioner Joseph Albert Fuchs, III brings the instant Petition to Vacate,
Correct, or Set Aside Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1). The case is now
before the Court for a preliminary review of the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
After a three-day bench trial in March 2022, this Court issued Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law finding Petitioner Fuchs guilty of coercion and enticement of
a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b), travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual
conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b), and engaging in illicit sexual conduct in a
foreign place in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(c). See United States v. Fuchs, No. 21-cr-
30054-SPM (Dec. 14, 2022) (Doc. 84). On December 14, 2022, this Court sentenced
Fuchs to a total term of 126 months’ imprisonment, to seven years of supervised
release, to a $3,000 fine, to a $300 special assessment, and to a $15,000 fine under
the Justice for Victims Trafficking Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-22. See id. (Docs. 118,
127). Fuchs filed a timely Notice of Appeal on December 22, 2022. See id. (Doc. 120).
Case 3:26-cv-00006-SPM Document 4 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction on October 8,
2024. See United States v. Fuchs, 118 F.4th 911 (7th Cir. 2024), reh’g denied, No. 22-
3269, 2024 WL 4665109 (7th Cir. Nov. 4, 2024). Fuchs’s conviction became final on
January 6, 2025. (See Doc. 1, p. 2).
Fuchs filed the instant § 2255 Petition attacking his sentence on January 5,
2026. (See id.). In his Petition, he alleges four claims of ineffective assistance of his
trial counsel, which may be brought for the first time under a § 2255 petition. See
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003); United States v. James, 635 F.3d
909, 916 (7th Cir. 2011). Fuchs alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for the
following reasons: (1) failure to file a motion to suppress Fuchs’s “custodial, unwarned
statement made at O’Hare International Airport, which formed the centerpiece of the
government’s case”; (2) “[f]ailure to challenge the authenticity of the Philippine birth
certificate introduced to prove the alleged victim’s age, despite clear defects under
Fed. R. Evid. 902(3) and (4)”; (3) “[f]ailure to obtain and litigate the investigative file,
leaving the defense unprepared to file pretrial motions, impeach witnesses, develop
suppression grounds, or attack the investigation or prosecution as flawed”; and (4)
“[w]aiver of appellate review of the custodial statement, which forfeited the only
meaningful constitutional claim on appeal and denied Mr. Fuchs his right to
appellate review.” (Doc. 1, p. 2).
Fuchs thus raises a single issue: whether or not his trial counsel was
ineffective. Without commenting on the merits of the claim, the Court concludes that
the Petition survives preliminary review under Rule 4. Given the limited record, it is
not plainly apparent that Fuchs is not entitled to relief pursuant to § 2255.
Case 3:26-cv-00006-SPM Document 4 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
DISPOSITION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent United States of America shall
answer or otherwise plead on or before April 6, 2026. This preliminary order to
respond does not preclude the Government from raising any objection or defense it
may wish to present.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	February 4, 2026
s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00006-SPM Document 4 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>