United States v. Calvin Dyess
730 F.3d 354
4th Cir.2013Background
- Dyess pled guilty to drug conspiracy and money laundering and was sentenced to life in prison after a large Charleston conspiracy (1995–1998).
- On direct appeal, we affirmed Dyess’ conviction and sentence in Dyess I; he later filed a §2255 motion (Dyess II) which was denied.
- The Presentence Report credited 20 kg cocaine, 80 kg cocaine base, and 272.16 kg marijuana, yielding a base level 38 and a life sentencing range; the district court upheld these findings at sentencing.
- During the appellate process, government misconduct involving detective Hart and witness Rader prompted a remand for proceedings on potential taint; the district court found tainted testimony did not affect the sentence and did not order resentencing.
- On remand, Dyess sought dismissal, withdrawal of plea, and resentencing; an evidentiary hearing was held limited in scope, and the district court denied resentencing.
- This §2255 appeal raises six claims, which the district court and this court analyzed under de novo for legal conclusions and clear-error for factual findings; the court affirms the denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly addressed all §2255 claims | Dyess contends the court erred by not considering his entire initial §2255 and related letters | The district court limited review to the properly pleaded amended petition with factual support | Proper to limit review to supported claims; no remand required |
| Apprendi challenge to indictment failure to allege drug quantity | Dyess argues lack of drug quantity in the indictment violated Apprendi and limited his maximum sentence | Dyess cannot relitigate on §2255 the Apprendi issue; if raised, plain-error standard applies | Claim rejected; Apprendi issue not cognizable on collateral review and, even if raised, would not warrant relief |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to discover Hart's misconduct | Counsel failed to uncover Hart–Rader misconduct, undermining Dyess's guilty plea | Counsel conducted reasonable investigation; prejudice not shown given overwhelming guilt and plea benefits | No deficient performance or prejudice established |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to indictment's drug-weight issue | Counsel should have argued drug weight was an element requiring indictment | Rule precedents did not require anticipation; decision after Jones did not render counsel ineffective | No deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Remand counsel's effectiveness for not calling all witnesses at the taint hearing | Remand counsel failed to call witnesses who could testify on Hart’s misconduct | Counsel exercised trial strategy and called all relevant witnesses within the hearing's narrow scope | No ineffective assistance for witness selection at remand hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cotton, 535 F.3d 625 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (Apprendi error not always noticed when evidence is overwhelming)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (any fact increasing maximum penalty must be charged and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (drug-weights as elements; notice and jury trial guarantees)
- Promise v. United States, 255 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc; Apprendi reasoning applied to circuit)
- McNamara v. United States, 74 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 1996) (failure to anticipate a new rule is not constitutionally deficient)
- United States v. Linder, 552 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009) (relitigation of issues on §2255 prohibited absent new law)
- United States v. Roane, 378 F.3d 382 (4th Cir. 2004) (relitigation bar on §2255 when no change in law)
- Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182 (4th Cir. 1976) (summary dismissal of vague §2255 claims)