MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Jonathan Flom, proceeding pro se, brings this motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255, principally alleging Brady violations and violations of the Confrontation Clause. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND Flom was indicted by a federal grand jury on September 22, 2014, and charged with one count of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(3)(A). (Indictment in 14-CR-507 (Doc. No. 1).) The indictment alleges, among other things, that Flom, a licensed attorney, agreed to participate in a scheme in which he would launder proceeds of the sale of fake stock certificates through his account and then send the money to a bank account that he believed was controlled by the fraudulent stock promoters. (Indictment (Doc. No. 1) at 2.)1 Unbeknownst to Flom, the scheme was a sting operation (“the 2013-2014 Sting”) conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and Flom had been engaged in the scheme with an undercover agent, who was introduced to Flom by cooperator Frank Speight. Flom had previously engaged in financial transactions with Speight in 2012 and 2013, in which Speight had sold fraudulent securities (“the Speight Scheme”). Speight, the former president and sole owner of registered transfer agent International Stock Transfer, Inc. (“IST”), engaged in an offering fraud by soliciting investors, through cold calls and targeted internet advertising, to purchase securities on the promise of high yields. (Motion in Limine in 14-CR-507 (Doc. No. 32) at 2.) Speight instructed investors to send their money to “escrow accounts” managed by Flom and another attorney, who did not transfer the money to the issuers of securities, but rather withdrew their own fee and transferred the balance to Speight, who stole the money. (Id.) In the summer of 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) began investigating IST, and IST voluntarily terminated its status as a licensed transfer agent. (Id.) Pursuant to an agreement to cooperate with law enforcement, Speight agreed, among other things, to introduce the undercover agent to Flom. (Id. at 2-3.) On September 23, 2014, the SEC filed a civil enforcement suit against Flom related to his participation in the Speight Scheme. SEC v. Flom, No. 14-CV-5575 (MKB)(LB). The complaint alleged that Flom received wire transfers from investors, kept a two percent fee for himself, and transferred the money to Speight, who then sent investors counterfeit securities. The complaint alleged that Flom knew or recklessly disregarded that he was facilitating a fraudulent scheme. (Complaint in 14-CV-5575 (Doc. No. 1) at 2.) Prior to trial in the criminal case, the government moved in limine to admit evidence of Flom’s participation in the earlier Speight Scheme under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Motion in Limine in 14-CR-507.) The Court ruled at a pre-trial conference on June 16, 2016, that the evidence was admissible and agreed to provide a limiting instruction to the jury. See United States v. Flom, 256 F. Supp. 3d 253, 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (describing 6/16/16 hearing, with reference to the transcript), aff’d, 763 F. App’x 27 (2d Cir. 2019). Trial commenced on June 20, 2016. The government presented evidence of Flom’s participation in both the Speight Scheme and the 2013-2014 Sting. Witness Robert Thibault, an investigator for the Royal Bank of Canada in Montreal, testified to his 2012 investigation of a personal bank account Flom used; his subsequent meeting with Flom in Montreal on April 9, 2012, during which he warned Flom that “it was our conclusion that the account was used for the illegal sale of bogus securities”; and the closure of Flom’s account at the bank and termination of the banking relationship. (Trial Transcript (“Tr.”) (Doc. No. 70) at 49-69.)2 Witness Janell Beck testified that she bought securities from a cold caller between February and July 2013, wired approximately $65,000 to the “Jonathan Flom Special Account” at TD Bank in Palm Beach, Florida, and received certificates for Adfitech stock that had printing errors and turned out to be worthless. (Tr. at 99-108.) An FBI agent using the pseudonym Max Larsen testified that the FBI began investigating Frank Speight and his company International Stock Transfer in 2012 and discovered that Flom and another attorney were maintaining bank accounts through which investor funds were transferred as part of this scheme. (Tr. (Doc. No. 71) at 142-43.) Larsen described the sting operation he set up with Speight, who was by then cooperating with the government, and who introduced him to Flom. (Tr. at 143-44, 153.) Larsen testified to a series of meetings, telephone calls, and email exchanges with Flom in which they discussed Larsen’s purported experience in similar schemes and Flom’s proposed participation in a new arrangement, for which Flom would get a five percent fee on all of the funds transferred through his accounts. The government played multiple recordings of these conversations at trial. Larsen testified about a meeting on September 26, 2013, at which he, Speight, and Flom discussed “speculative” work (Tr. at 160), “red flags” (Tr. at 164, 167), “building that comfort level” (Tr. at 165), “circling the wagons” when confronted with customer complaints (Tr. 176, 190-91), concerns about bank regulators (Tr. 182-83), maintaining a “protected triangle” and tight circles (Tr. at 183, 187, 190-91), and loyalty among the three participants (Tr. at 193). Larsen testified that in subsequent telephone conversations on October 10, 2013, and December 6, 2013, and at a meeting on February 15, 2014, they discussed manipulating the price of Adfitech shares (Tr. at 199), printing of certificates (Tr. at 201, 235), “paying for discretion” (Tr. at 240-41), and “risky transactions” (Tr. at 241). He also testified that they role-played ways to handle complaints from disgruntled investors complaining about “worthless securities.” (Tr. at 203, 235-39, 248-54.) Larsen also testified that he deliberately gave Flom reasons to be suspicious about the fraudulent activity and opportunities to walk away. (Tr. at 162, 175, 204, 231, 236-37, 252.) On cross-examination, Flom’s attorney (“Defense Counsel”) asked Larsen if he had ever asked Speight whether Flom was aware of the fraudulent nature of the securities in the Speight Scheme, and Larsen acknowledged that he had not. (Tr. at 262.) Thereafter, FBI Agent Adam Karczewski testified about the FBI’s investigation into the Speight Scheme; electronic messages and telephone calls between Flom and Speight related to those transactions, an SEC audit, questions about the marketability of Altmark bonds and their failure to pay coupons; and two versions of a letter dated November 19, 2013, in which Flom represented that the Altmark bonds had paid coupons historically. (Tr. (Doc. No. 73) at 447, 458-74). Karczewski also testified to the FBI’s initial approach of Flom on April 16, 2014. Karczewski testified that he played recordings of the February 15, 2014, meeting where, according to Karczewski, “Max Larsen tells him, just so you know, we’re transacting in fraudulent securities.” (Tr. at 451.) Karczewski testified that Flom told him: “What the recording doesn’t show you is that I winced when he said that.” (Tr. at 451.) Karczewski also testified that Flom told him that he knew that Speight and Larsen were selling bogus securities, but that he thought his transactions only related to Altmark securities. (Tr. at 452.) On cross-examination, Karczewski stated that he informed Flom midway through the interview that Flom was a target of the investigation but did not advise him of his constitutional rights during that encounter. (Tr. at 488-89.) Karczewski testified that Flom agreed to cooperate in the investigation and signed a consent form agreeing to make recordings for the FBI. (Tr. at 490-91.) Defense Counsel tried to ask the witness about Flom’s exculpatory statements and additional efforts to cooperate, but the Court sustained the government’s hearsay objection. (Tr. at 494-50.) The Court gave an instruction to the jury on the Rule 404(b) evidence that it was not to consider evidence of the prior relationship or acts between Flom and Speight as proof that Flom committed the crime charged in the indictment or as evidence of bad character or criminal personality, but only as an inference related to the defendant’s knowledge and intent in the subsequent acts. (Tr. at 524.) The government presented a final witness, FBI financial analyst Carol White, who testified to the bank transactions in Flom’s TD Bank account between October 2012 and August 2013 and between December 2013 and April 2014. Flom presented two character witnesses, but he did not testify on his own behalf. Neither side called Speight as a witness. On summation, Defense Counsel talked about the presumption of innocence and the government’s burden of proof (Tr. (Doc. No. 77) at 774); distinguished between the Larsen transactions that were part of the indictment and the Speight transactions that were not (Tr. at 778); argued that Flom was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the securities involved in the transactions he processed (Tr. at 782); and highlighted that the elements of the offense required the jury to find that Flom believed that the proceeds were from unlawful activity (Tr. at 797-98). The jury rendered a guilty verdict on June 24, 2016. (Jury Verdict (Doc. No. 69).) Flom filed a post-trial motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 29 and Rule 33, in which he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and argued that the Court erred in admitting the testimony regarding the Speight Scheme, among other errors. (Motion for New Trial (Doc. No. 74).) The Court denied the motion, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of Flom’s knowledge and intent with regard to his conduct in the 2013-2014 Sting and that the evidence related to the Speight Scheme was relevant and probative to Flom’s knowledge and intent about the fraudulent nature of the transactions in the later arrangement with Larsen. Flom, 256 F. Supp. 3d at 266, 268-69. Flom was sentenced on July 28, 2017. The Court found, under the preponderance of the evidence standard, that Flom had participated in the earlier Speight Scheme and knew that the funds he transferred were the proceeds of unlawful activity. (Sentencing Transcript (“Sentencing Tr.”) (Doc. No. 112) at 24.) The Court held him responsible for all of the relevant conduct in the Speight Scheme and for the value of all of the funds laundered during both periods. (Sentencing Tr. at 40.) The Court calculated an offense level of 26, which was subject to a Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months. The Court then considered Flom’s actual profit from the schemes and the disparity between the amounts laundered in the charged conduct and the prior relevant conduct and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. (Sentencing Tr. at 55.) Flom appealed his conviction, (1) challenging the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) alleging trial court error related to the admission of 404(b) evidence and other evidentiary rulings; and (3) alleging errors in the jury charge. The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction on February 27, 2019, holding, among other things, that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Flom was aware of the fraudulent nature of the securities in the 2013-2014 Sting and that the Court did not err in admitting the Rule 404(b) evidence related to the Speight Scheme. United States v. Flom, 763 F. App’x 27 (2d Cir. 2019). Flom sought a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which denied the petition on November 14, 2019. Flom v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 421 (2019). The SEC civil enforcement action was stayed while the criminal case proceeded and during initial settlement negotiations. (14-CV-5575 Docket Order 12/08/2014; see also 14-CV-5575 Docket Order 4/11/2017.) On August 30, 2018, the SEC submitted a letter to the Court stating “Flom informed Commission counsel in late July 2018 that he was not interested in a settlement and that he intended to litigate this action.” (8/30/18 SEC Update Letter in 14-CV-5575 (Doc. No. 47).) On April 12, 2019, the SEC filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal dismissing all claims against Flom with prejudice. (14-CV-5575 (Doc. No. 64).) Flom filed the instant 28 U.S.C. §2255 petition (“Pet.”) on November 1, 2019. The petition states: “A list of constitutional violations exist, among them Confrontation Clause, Brady violation, and Sixth Amendment due process” (Pet. 3), but it does not provide any factual allegations or legal arguments in support of these claims. Instead, Flom claims that the April 12, 2019, dismissal of the SEC’s civil enforcement action “is an acquittance that reaffirms Flom’s innocence” in the Speight Scheme. (Pet.
4, 23.) He argues that the evidence of his participation in the Speight Scheme should not have been admitted at trial or relied on at sentencing. He asserts that without this evidence, the government could not have proved scienter or intent in the 2013-2014 activities, and thus that he would not have been convicted of the charges in the sting operation. (Pet.
