Nicole Walker v. United States, 810 F.3d 568

Background

Nicole Walker pled guilty (Feb 24, 2011) to a methamphetamine conspiracy and signed a plea agreement acknowledging a 5–40 year range but that a court finding of greater drug quantity could trigger a 10‑year mandatory minimum.
At sentencing the government sought to attribute >50 g actual methamphetamine (supporting a 10‑year minimum); the district court found the larger quantity by a preponderance and denied safety‑valve relief (§ 3553(f)(5)), imposing the 10‑year mandatory minimum.
Walker appealed; the Eighth Circuit affirmed her sentence on direct appeal (688 F.3d 416). Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
Walker filed a § 2255 motion arguing (inter alia) Alleyne error (judge, not jury, found quantity), Alleyne retroactivity, and ineffective assistance of counsel at plea, sentencing, and certiorari stages; the district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
On de novo review the Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of § 2255 relief, rejecting retroactivity/Teague arguments, finding no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland, and holding no entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Walker's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Alleyne error requires relief on collateral review	Alleyne requires jury finding beyond reasonable doubt for facts increasing mandatory minimum; Walker says judge’s preponderance finding was plain error	Alleyne announced a new rule that is not retroactive on collateral review under Teague; no plain‑error relief on § 2255	Denied — Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review; plain‑error framework inappropriate post‑finality
Whether Alleyne is a "watershed" Teague exception	Alleyne is a watershed rule protecting reliability/fairness (so it should apply retroactively)	Alleyne is an extension of Apprendi and not a watershed rule; precedent rejects retroactivity	Denied — Alleyne not a watershed rule; Apprendi progeny not retroactive
Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise Alleyne in certiorari petition	Counsel should have raised Alleyne in certiorari phase; failure was ineffective assistance	No constitutional right to counsel for certiorari; counsel not deficient for failing to predict change in law (Alleyne decided after cert denied)	Denied — no constitutional right to effective counsel for certiorari; counsel not deficient for failing to anticipate Alleyne
Whether trial/appellate counsel were ineffective re: plea, safety‑valve, and appeal choices	Counsel misadvised on likely sentence, failed to secure safety‑valve, and omitted safety‑valve on appeal, making plea involuntary and appeal ineffective	Plea acknowledged possible 10‑year minimum and that no one promised a lesser sentence; counsel’s estimates do not render plea involuntary; strategic appellate choices protected by Strickland	Denied — plea was voluntary; counsel’s performance not constitutionally deficient or prejudicial; appellate winnowing was reasonable

Key Cases Cited

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (prior precedent permitting judge‑found facts to increase mandatory minimums)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new constitutional rules on collateral review)
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (definition and narrowness of "watershed" rules for retroactivity)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (ineffective‑assistance standard applied to guilty pleas)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (right to effective counsel during plea negotiations)
United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 2012) (Walker’s direct‑appeal decision affirmed)