Corey Keys v. United States, 943 F.3d 1152

Corey Keys pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was sentenced; district court labeled him a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1 based on Iowa drug convictions (2005, 2008, 2009).
Keys argued at sentencing that his 2008 and 2009 convictions were "relevant conduct"—part of the same conspiracy as the federal offense—so they should not count as prior sentences for career-offender purposes.
Keys later filed a § 2255 motion asserting a Brady violation: the government failed to disclose proffer interviews that he claimed would support his relevant-conduct argument.
The district court found Application Note 8 to USSG § 1B1.3 barred treating preexisting sentences as relevant conduct and concluded any undisclosed proffers would not have changed the sentencing outcome; it denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Application Note 8 foreclosed Keys’s argument and therefore any nondisclosure of the proffers did not prejudice Keys.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nondisclosure of proffer interviews violated Brady and was material at sentencing	Keys: undisclosed proffers would show 2008/2009 convictions were part of same conspiracy and thus not prior sentences	Gov: even if proffers existed, Application Note 8 bars treating prior sentences as relevant conduct so no prejudice	Held: No Brady prejudice — Application Note 8 foreclosed the relevance argument, so nondisclosure could not change the sentence
Whether 2008/2009 convictions qualify as prior sentences for career-offender enhancement under USSG	Keys: those convictions are relevant conduct and should not count as separate prior sentences	Gov: convictions resulted in sentences imposed before the charged conspiracy and therefore count as prior sentences under Application Note 8	Held: Application Note 8 governs; convictions preceded the indictment’s charged conspiracy date and properly counted as predicate offenses for career-offender status

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (establishes government duty to disclose favorable, material evidence)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (defines materiality standard for suppressed evidence affecting proceedings)
United States v. Heppner, 519 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2008) (Brady framework as applied in Eighth Circuit)
United States v. Ladoucer, 573 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2009) (reasonable-probability materiality standard citation)
White v. Steele, 853 F.3d 486 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for § 2255 findings and legal conclusions)
United States v. Grady, 931 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 2019) (discussion of career-offender definitions under USSG § 4B1.1)
United States v. Keys, 785 F.3d 1240 (8th Cir. 2015) (prior direct-appeal holding that Application Note 8 precludes treating earlier sentenced conduct as relevant conduct)
United States v. Walterman, 343 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2003) (sentencing-guideline commentary is authoritative absent constitutional or federal-law conflict)