Rahman v. United States, 1:14-cv-10061

Background

Yusuf Abdur‑Rahman was indicted on four counts related to a Medicaid fraud scheme, access‑device fraud, obtaining controlled substances by fraud, and aggravated identity theft; a jury convicted him in March 2009.
This Court sentenced him principally to 101 months’ imprisonment; the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
Abdur‑Rahman filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising ten arguments: five re‑litigated from direct appeal and five newly presented.
The Government argued many claims were precluded by the mandate rule or the exhaustion rule; petitioner contended appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the new claims.
The district court applied the mandate rule to bar re‑litigation of issues the Second Circuit decided or impliedly resolved on appeal, and applied the exhaustion rule to bar claims not raised on appeal because Abdur‑Rahman failed to show cause and prejudice or actual innocence.
The § 2255 petition was denied, no certificate of appealability issued, and the court found any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims decided or impliedly resolved on direct appeal are barred by the mandate rule	Abdur‑Rahman re‑argues five issues resolved on appeal (jurisdictional defects, sufficiency as to federal vs. state injury, access‑device fraud sufficiency, double jeopardy, jury instructions)	Government: mandate rule bars re‑litigation of issues decided or impliedly resolved by the Second Circuit	Mandate rule bars re‑litigation; those five claims are precluded
Whether unraised claims on direct appeal are barred by the exhaustion rule	New claims: consent to card use negates fraud; § 1347 inapplicable to non‑providers; indictment void for vagueness; sentencing miscounted priors; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising them	Government: claims could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred absent cause and prejudice or actual innocence	Claims are barred: petitioner failed to show cause and actual prejudice or actual innocence
Whether appellate counsel’s strategy in selecting issues constitutes cause (ineffective assistance)	Abdur‑Rahman: appellate counsel’s failure to raise certain issues was ineffective assistance, excusing exhaustion	Government: strategic appellate choices are reasonable; attorney error does not constitute cause absent objective external impediment	Counsel’s focus on pro se/self‑representation claim was a reasonable strategy; appellate counsel not ineffective for that selection; no cause shown
Whether petitioner established actual innocence to overcome procedural default	Abdur‑Rahman argues legal defects in elements and sentencing amount to actual innocence	Government: these are legal/technical challenges, not factual innocence that would satisfy the gateway standard	Court: petitioner did not show he did not commit the charged crimes nor new reliable evidence; technical/legal arguments do not meet actual innocence standard; default stands

Key Cases Cited

Yick Man Mui v. United States, 614 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (mandate rule and preclusion standards)
United States v. Ben Zvi, 242 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2001) (scope of appellate mandate)
United States v. Pitcher, 559 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2009) (§ 2255 ineffective‑assistance claims barred when premised on same facts as direct appeal)
Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339 (1994) (exhaustion rule in collateral review)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (cause and prejudice / actual innocence gateway)
Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (cause standard for procedural default)
Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) (actual prejudice standard)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (attorney error not cause for procedural default)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (appellate counsel need not raise every nonfrivolous issue)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (difficulty of Strickland claims based on omitted appellate arguments)
Poindexter v. Nash, 333 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 2003) (definition of actual innocence for sentence challenges)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (good‑faith standard for appeals from denials of leave to proceed in forma pauperis)