United States v. Byron McDade
699 F.3d 499
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- McDade convicted of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms of cocaine; direct appeal unsuccessful.
- McDade filed a 2255 motion within one year but omitted an ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IAC) claim.
- Government argued the IAC claim was time-barred; court considered equitable tolling per Holland v. Florida.
- District court allowed amended 2255 with IAC claim after deadline; tolling applied due to diligent pursuit and counsel’s inadvertence.
- On the merits, court held no Strickland prejudice from trial counsel’s failure to interview impeachment witnesses; conviction affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling extends the 2255 clock. | McDade entitled to tolling due to diligence. | McDade’s late IAC claim not timely if tolling not applicable. | Equitable tolling applies to §2255 motions. |
| Whether McDade's IAC claim was properly before the court after tolling. | Late IAC claim should be considered. | Tolling restores jurisdictional timeliness. | The IAC claim is properly before the court. |
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to interview Douglas, Flowers, and Robinson was objectively reasonable under Strickland. | Counsel’s decisions were unreasonable given potential testimony. | Decisions were reasonable tactical judgments. | No prejudice; outcome would not have differed. |
| Whether Robinson’s potential testimony would have changed the outcome. | Robinson’s testimony could undermine credibility of government witnesses. | Robinson would have invoked Fifth Amendment; unlikely to alter result. | No reasonable probability of a different outcome. |
| What standard of review governs §2255 IAC mixed questions. | De novo review should apply. | Strickland prejudice standard governs; mixed standard uncertain. | Court remains agnostic but upholds Strickland framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (equitable tolling applies to AEDPA-like time limits)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes the test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (attorney error generally not extraordinary; tolling allowed in narrow circumstances)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (equitable tolling normally available; two-part test for diligence and extraordinary obstruction)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (extraordinary circumstances standard for tolling)
- Cicero, 214 F.3d 199 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (distinguishes garden-variety error from extraordinary tolling circumstances)
- Debango v. United States, 780 F.2d 81 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (discusses complete failure to investigate witnesses in context of Strickland)
- Pollard, 416 F.3d 48 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (illustrates diligence vs. neglect in tolling context)