1 (Docket # 65) (“In the petitioners first claim: Denial of Right to Testify to the Grand Jury ... the state claims that the criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to testify before the grand jury in his own defense.”). In the amended petition, Van Gorder refers only to his original claims and does nothing more than respond to the arguments made in opposition to these claims. He does not set forth any new claims and, in fact, only couches some of his old habeas claims in the context of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. However, because Van Gorder is proceeding pro se, the Court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally. McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir.2004); see also Fleming v. United States, 146 F.3d 88, 90 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted). Thus, although the
holding that a district court must review pro se petitions with a lenient eye allowing borderline cases to proceed holding that a pro se defendant is not held to a different or more lenient standard merely because he elected to proceed pro se one who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se holding no presumption of acquiescence because defendant was never allowed to proceed pro se holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial