United States v. Maday, 1:17-cv-01852

Background

Maday pled guilty in 2009 to multiple bank robberies; while in federal custody awaiting sentencing he escaped from county officers, committed additional crimes (including a bank robbery) and was prosecuted federally and in state court.
After a five-day jury trial in federal court he was convicted on five counts including escape, two § 924(c) counts for using/brandishing a firearm, aggravated bank robbery, and § 922(g) with ACCA; combined sentence totaled 62 years (two cases consolidated on appeal).
On direct appeal appointed counsel filed Anders briefs; Maday argued the evidence was insufficient to support the § 924(c) conviction for the bank robbery (Count IV) and alleged prosecutorial misconduct; the Seventh Circuit affirmed (cert. denied).
Maday filed a § 2255 petition raising (1) actual innocence of Count IV, (2) prosecutorial misconduct, (3) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) challenges to his custody/placement.
The district court rejected relitigation of issues already decided on direct appeal, reviewed the merits where necessary, found the evidence (testimony, guns recovered, his post-arrest confession, surveillance video) sufficient, and denied the § 2255 petition and a certificate of appealability.

Issues

Issue	Maday's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Actual innocence of Count IV (§ 924(c) for bank robbery)	Bulge under shirt was a baseball cap, not a gun; submits enhanced still images as new evidence	Claim was raised on direct appeal (frivolous) and, on the merits, record (testimony, recovered guns, confession, video) supports conviction	Denied — claim precluded by direct appeal; merits also insufficient to show actual innocence or newly discovered evidence entitlement under § 2255
Prosecutorial misconduct	Prosecutor mischaracterized teller testimony and misstated evidence to grand jury and jury (sustained campaign of misdirection)	Arguments were proper advocacy; any grand jury error is harmless because petit jury convicted beyond reasonable doubt	Denied — no due-process‑infecting misconduct; grand jury issues harmless in light of petit jury verdict
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Sassan)	Counsel failed to adequately challenge video evidence and should have obtained enhanced stills or a video expert	Counsel vigorously litigated suppression, cross-examined witnesses, sought a video expert, developed defenses, and made strategic choice not to enhance video	Denied — counsel's performance was reasonable and not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence
Custody / placement	Conditions at state facility are harsh; requests transfer to federal facility	§ 2255 attacks sentence legality, not conditions; BOP has authority to designate place of imprisonment	Denied — conditions claim not cognizable on § 2255; court cannot order BOP placement decisions

Key Cases Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel’s motion to withdraw when appeal lacks merit)
White v. United States, 371 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2004) (issues raised on direct appeal cannot be relitigated on § 2255)
Varela v. United States, 481 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2007) (relitigation barred absent changed circumstances)
United States v. Kohli, 847 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial remarks require reversal only if they render trial fundamentally unfair)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to counsel’s strategic choices in ineffective‑assistance review)
United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (1986) (petit jury conviction renders harmless any grand jury error)
United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) (BOP, not sentencing court, designates place of imprisonment)