United States v. Bobby Curtis, 769 F.3d 271

Curtis pleaded guilty to concealing bankruptcy estate assets valued over $942,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 152(1) and later sought § 2255 relief alleging ineffective assistance by his court-appointed counsel, Smith.
Gen-I-Tech provided E-Rate funded technology services to Westside; USAC funding was approved and Gen-I-Tech was paid, with most funds disbursed in 2003.
Curtis filed for multiple bankruptcies (Chapter 13, then 11, then 7) with discharge on July 23, 2003, prior to the later execution of E-Rate contracts.
The district court denied Curtis’s § 2255 motion after a magistrate judge recommended relief, and the appellate court granted limited COA on counsel's effectiveness claims.
Plea hearing occurred January 12, 2009; Curtis stated he understood the charge and that he discussed it with Smith, then later sought to withdraw his plea, arguing various deficiencies by Smith.
Standard of review for § 2255 appeals is Strickland v. Washington, requiring a deficient performance and prejudice showing; the court reviews findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of the indictment	Curtis argues the statute of limitations had run due to misresearch.	Smith allegedly failed to properly research the limit; plea was impacted by this.	Indictment timely; no prejudice from alleged misresearch.
Failure to consult Willson as a witness	Would have uncovered exculpatory information about E-Rate contracts.	Willson had no knowledge of the pertinent contracts; reliance on Willson would not have changed defense.	No prejudice; failure to consult Willson did not affect outcome.
Failure to receive and/or review discovery	Smith did not review bankruptcy petition or discovery before plea.	Deficient performance but prejudice not shown; Curtis would still have pleaded guilty.	No prejudice; ineffective assistance claim fails on this ground.
Overall prejudice under Strickland	Counsel’s failures cumulatively prejudiced Curtis by inducing guilty plea.	Individual failures, even if present, did not create a reasonable probability of trial victory.	Curtis fails to show prejudice; petition denied.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice inquiry for guilty plea involves likely trial outcome)
Glinsey v. United States, 209 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2000) (requirement to allege how investigation would have benefited defendant)
In re Stamm, 222 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2000) (bankruptcy case treatment and assets tracing on appeal)
Dolan v. United States, 120 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 1997) (continuing-offense concepts and timing considerations)