United States v. Andre McDaniels, 907 F.3d 366

Background

Andre McDaniels pleaded guilty in a 2012 sex‑trafficking case pursuant to a written plea agreement calling for a 96‑month sentence; the agreement disclaimed other promises unless in writing.
Separately, McDaniels pleaded guilty (without a written plea agreement) to nine counts of federal witness tampering; the PSR recommended a guidelines range of 87–108 months, and he received 78 months to run consecutively.
McDaniels later filed a § 2255 motion alleging (1) the government orally promised that his sex‑trafficking plea would not affect sentencing in the witness‑tampering case (breach of plea agreement) and (2) his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to that breach.
The district court denied the § 2255 motion and denied a Rule 59(e) motion to alter the judgment without an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal the government challenged jurisdiction; the Fifth Circuit held the Rule 59(e) motion insofar as it reasserted substantive claims was a successive § 2255 application (no jurisdiction), but the court retained jurisdiction to review the denial of an evidentiary hearing because that challenge attacked procedure rather than the merits.
Applying § 2255 standards, the Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of an evidentiary hearing, finding McDaniels offered no independent indicia (e.g., reliable third‑party affidavits) to overcome his prior sworn statements and the written plea agreement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McDaniels’ Rule 59(e) motion was a successive § 2255 petition	Rule 59(e) merely sought reconsideration and an evidentiary hearing, not a new habeas claim	The Rule 59(e) repeated the same substantive claims and thus functioned as a successive § 2255 petition	The Rule 59(e) reasserting substantive Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims was a successive § 2255 application (no jurisdiction); the request for an evidentiary hearing was a bona fide Rule 59(e) claim so appealable
Whether the appeal was timely	McDaniels timely filed Rule 59(e) and then timely appealed after its denial	Gov’t stressed strict timing rules for civil appeals involving the United States	Appeal was timely as to the evidentiary‑hearing claim because the Rule 59(e) tolling rule applied
Whether McDaniels showed independent indicia warranting an evidentiary hearing on breach/IAC claims	McDaniels pointed to counsel’s on‑the‑record statements and prosecutor comments as an oral promise	Government relied on the written plea agreement, McDaniels’ sworn courtroom admissions denying extra promises, and lack of third‑party affidavits or written modification	No abuse of discretion: McDaniels failed to present independent indicia (reliable third‑party affidavits or equivalent) to overcome his sworn plea statements and the written plea agreement; denial of hearing affirmed
Whether the government breached a promise that would render the plea involuntary	McDaniels argued an oral promise induced his guilty plea and its breach tainted voluntariness	Government argued no binding oral promise was made; any remarks were nonbinding and the court warned any promise must be in writing	Court treated breach claim as meritless on record absent independent evidence of a binding promise; substantive claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on appeal as successive habeas

Key Cases Cited

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (distinguishing bona fide procedural Rule 60/59 motions from successive habeas petitions)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timeliness of notices of appeal is jurisdictional)
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (solemn statements in open court carry a strong presumption of verity)
United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106 (5th Cir. 1998) (need for independent indicia—reliable third‑party affidavits—to obtain evidentiary hearing on plea‑promise claims)
Davis v. Butler, 825 F.2d 892 (5th Cir. 1987) (remanding for hearing where petitioner alleged specific promise corroborated by circumstances)
United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for denial of evidentiary hearing: abuse of discretion)
United States v. Hernandes, 708 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 2013) (a defendant may not file successive § 2255 motions without circuit authorization)