United States v. Joseph Brian Howard, 2:19-cr-00237

Marvin Bozeman pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, attributed with 17.2 kilograms as per the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR).
Bozeman's attorney, Joseph Landusky, filed objections to the PSR regarding drug quantity, leadership enhancement, and application of the safety valve at sentencing.
The Court largely overruled objections but later removed the two-level leadership enhancement. Bozeman was ultimately sentenced to 154 months, later reduced to 151 months.
Bozeman filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on three grounds, arguing his attorney failed to present exculpatory affidavits, object to drug quantity compared to co-conspirators, and challenge the drug quantity calculation method.
The Government argued the motion was untimely and meritless; the Court found equitable tolling applied due to mailing issues and reviewed the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of § 2255 Motion	Mail delay should toll filing; he acted diligently	Motion filed late, beyond one-year period	Motion deemed timely
Ineffective Counsel: Exculpatory Affidavits	Counsel failed to present affidavits disproving some packages contained drugs	Never received the affidavits; would have used them	No deficient performance
Ineffective Counsel: Drug Quantity	Counsel didn’t object to higher drug amount than co-conspirators	Did object; drug amount based on out-of-state supply role	Counsel not ineffective
Ineffective Counsel: Calculation Method	Counsel didn’t argue for ratio calculation that would lower drug quantity	Objected to methodology; made arguments during sentencing	Arguments properly made; no ineffectiveness

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes effective assistance)