Byron Blake v. United States, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15125

Blake was indicted in 2006 for conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine; initial counsel was Fabbri and Zotos.
Fabbri was under investigation himself, raising potential conflict of interest; SDIL prosecutors screened off from Fabbri's case.
Blake submitted to a proffer interview in November 2006, before Fabbri had fully reviewed discovery.
December 28, 2006 hearing addressed conflict issue; Fabbri moved to withdraw and Stenger appointed to represent Blake.
A superseding indictment was filed on March 21, 2007, adding two narcotics counts; trial proceeded March 27, 2007 with verdicts on March 29, 2007.
Blake challenged effectiveness of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in 2009; district court denied relief; Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of COA and petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fabbri's conflict affected representation	Blake argues actual conflict harmed defense under Cuyler/Strickland.	USA argues no actual conflict and no prejudice; screening off mitigated risk.	No actual conflict proven; no prejudicial effect shown.
Whether Stenger's failure to move to dismiss violated the Speedy Trial Act	Blake asserts ACT violation due to delays and improper exclusions.	USA contends Act computations show excludable time and proper handling; no violation.	No Speedy Trial Act violation; exclusions approved; no prejudice from delays.
Whether appellate counsel were ineffective for not challenging Fabbri's withdrawal	Blake claims failure to appeal conflict issue violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choosing.	Appellate counsel reasonably avoided weak issues; Blake refused to waive conflict and elected replacement counsel.	Appellate claims lacking viability; no ineffective assistance on this ground.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (actual conflict standard; adverse effect presumed)
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1978) (duty to inquire into conflicts when joint representation)
Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1981) (right to counsel free from conflicts)
Spreitzer v. Peters, 114 F.3d 1435 (7th Cir. 1997) (mix of law and fact in conflict-of-interest analysis)
Montoya, 827 F.2d 143 (7th Cir. 1987) (excludable pretrial time when related to motions)
Knox v. United States, 400 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2005) (tolling and exclusions under Speedy Trial Act)
United States v. White, 443 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2006) (district court discretion under Speedy Trial Act)
United States v. Marin, 7 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 1993) (continuances and excludable time considerations)
Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (S. Ct. 2010) (tolled pretrial time and automatic exclusions revisited)