Nash v. United States, 3:20-cv-00066

Background

Allen Nash was indicted (superseding indictment Aug. 16, 2016) on five counts: sex trafficking of a minor, interstate transport for commercial sex, felon in possession of ammunition, sex trafficking through force/fraud/coercion, and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking.
Jury convicted Nash on all five counts after an April 2018 trial.
District court sentenced Nash to concurrent life terms on Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, and 120 months on Count 3, with five years’ supervised release; some state terms were ordered to run consecutively.
Nash appealed to the Fifth Circuit (arguing severance and denial of self-representation); the Fifth Circuit affirmed in November 2019. Nash did not seek certiorari.
Nash filed a second final amended § 2255 motion (Feb. 10, 2021) asserting (1) factual innocence of all charges and (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (chiefly that ammunition evidence was not connected and Count 3 was misjoined). He filed numerous supplemental motions thereafter.
The magistrate judge recommended denial with prejudice of the § 2255 motion and denied an evidentiary hearing, finding Nash’s claims conclusory, contradicted by the record, or meritless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Actual innocence of all counts	Nash contends there was no trial evidence that R.J. was under 18, no force/fraud/coercion, no interstate transport intent, and no evidence connecting him to the ammunition	Freestanding actual-innocence claims are not cognizable absent constitutional error; trial testimony tied Nash to victims and ammunition	Denied — freestanding innocence claim not a basis for § 2255; Nash’s conclusory denials are refuted by trial testimony
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (general/controlling precedent)	Appellate counsel failed to raise controlling precedent and key arguments, depriving Nash on appeal	Appellate counsel need not raise every nonfrivolous issue; Nash fails to identify omitted controlling precedent or show prejudice	Denied — conclusory allegation; no showing counsel’s omission fell below reasonable standard or caused prejudice
Ineffective assistance re: ammunition connection / search or arrest in Dallas / misjoinder	Counsel failed to argue ammunition was unrelated to other counts, no Dallas search/arrest linked him to ammo, and misjoinder allowed prejudicial felony evidence	Appellate brief did argue lack of connection for Counts 1–2; record contained testimony linking ammunition and Counts 4–5; misjoinder/severance argument was raised on appeal and rejected	Denied — counsel raised the severance/ammunition claim; other ammunition-related arguments were meritless, so failure to raise them is not deficient; issues decided on direct appeal cannot be relitigated on § 2255
Other pleaded claims & evidentiary hearing	Nash repeatedly filed additional claims (trial counsel IAC, prosecutorial misconduct, self‑incrimination, unlawful imprisonment) and requested a hearing	Many claims were not included in the final amended petition or are conclusory; no independent indicia of merit to justify a hearing	Denied — excluded or denied as conclusory; no evidentiary hearing warranted under § 2255(b)

Key Cases Cited

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (freestanding actual innocence is not a basis for federal habeas relief)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective‑assistance claims may be raised in collateral proceedings under § 2255)
Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) (procedural default doctrine for collateral review)
Shaid v. United States, 937 F.2d 228 (5th Cir.) (collateral challenge cannot substitute for an appeal)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency)
United States v. Jones, 172 F.3d 381 (5th Cir.) (definition and pleading requirements for actual innocence claims)
Willis v. United States, 273 F.3d 592 (5th Cir.) (procedural default and waiver principles in collateral review)
United States v. Reed, 719 F.3d 369 (5th Cir.) (standard for when an evidentiary hearing is required on § 2255 claims)