United States v. Marquis Edwards, 16-55537

Marquis Edwards pled guilty to one count of RICO conspiracy involving his role in the Pueblo Bishops Bloods; the overt acts included two murders he participated in as a juvenile.
Edwards filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to dismiss the indictment due to pre‑indictment delay.
The Ninth Circuit granted a COA limited to the pre‑indictment delay ineffective‑assistance claim; Edwards sought to expand the COA to add two more claims in his opening brief.
The two additional claims were: (1) counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss because the indictment charged only acts committed while Edwards was a juvenile (invoking the Juvenile Delinquency Act), and (2) the district court abused its discretion by denying discovery related to the Government’s pre‑indictment delay.
The district court denied relief on the § 2255 motion and denied discovery; the panel reviews de novo legal rulings and abuse of discretion for evidentiary hearing/ discovery denials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss for pre‑indictment delay	Edwards: delay caused actual prejudice (would have been treated under JDA if indicted before 21) and offended fundamental justice	Gov't: no showing of actual, non‑speculative prejudice; delay attributable to investigation of complex RICO case	Denied — counsel not deficient; Edwards could not show likely prejudice and pre‑indictment‑delay dismissal is rarely granted
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss because indictment charged only juvenile acts (JDA argument)	Edwards: indictment only alleges acts when he was a juvenile so JDA protections should require dismissal or post‑majority ratification	Gov't: JDA did not apply because Edwards was indicted after age 21; no requirement for a ratifying act post‑majority	Denied — claim meritless; counsel not ineffective; COA expansion denied
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying discovery on the cause of pre‑indictment delay	Edwards: discovery needed to develop facts showing government caused tactical delay and resulting prejudice	Gov't: discovery unnecessary because Edwards cannot show actual prejudice; claim was speculative	Denied — district court properly denied discovery as Edwards could not show likelihood of proving prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
United States v. Huntley, 976 F.2d 1287 (pre‑indictment delay test: actual prejudice and balancing against reasons for delay)
United States v. De Jesus Corona‑Verbera, 509 F.3d 1105 (prejudice requirement for pre‑indictment delay is a heavy burden)
Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (standard for habeas discovery: specific allegations must show facts that could entitle petitioner to relief)
Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025 (procedural rule on expanding COA treated as motion)
United States v. Juvenile Male, 492 F.3d 1046 (interpretation of JDA certification factors)