McCoy v. United States, 707 F.3d 184

McCoy was convicted in August 2006 on multiple drug- and firearm-related counts.
The government filed a second offender notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 based on a 1996 Connecticut narcotics conviction.
McCoy entered an Alford plea in 1996, avoiding admission of the underlying facts.
The notice sought to elevate the sentence under § 841(b)(1)(B) from five to ten years; he ultimately received 181 months’ imprisonment.
The district court denied relief on both habeas claims but granted a certificate of appealability on the ineffective-assistance claim.
This court affirms the district court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Second offender enhancement validity	McCoy argues the 851 enhancement was improper given the Alford plea.	State relied on prior Connecticut conviction facts to trigger enhancement.	Enhancement validly applied under then-prevailing law.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object	Trial counsel should have objected to the second offender notice based on changed law.	Counsel’s performance assessed as of time of conduct; no duty to foresee law changes.	Counsel not constitutionally deficient.
Prejudice from failure to object	Even with objection, sentence would be lower; prejudice shown.	Even with a lower minimum, overall sentence would remain largely the same.	No reasonable probability that outcome would have been different.

Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (use of court documents to prove predicate offenses in § 851 context)
Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2001) (counsel not required to forecast future changes in law)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (reasonable-strickland standard applied to state-court counsel)
Harrington v. United States, 689 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2012) (contextual standard for evaluating ineffective assistance)
United States v. Savage, 542 F.3d 959 (2d Cir. 2008) (post‑Madera/Lopez/Cohens developments on § 841(b) predicates)