United States v. McCormick, 5:10-cr-00320

McCormick pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute >50 grams of cocaine base and was sentenced to 50 months imprisonment plus 5 years supervised release.
Released March 27, 2014; supervised release began and multiple positive drug tests and state criminal charges followed within the first year.
A second amended revocation motion alleged multiple drug positives and state charges (prostitution-related and drug offenses); after a revocation hearing the court found violations by a preponderance of the evidence and imposed a 50-month revocation sentence.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the revocation sentence on appeal; the Supreme Court denied certiorari in February 2017.
McCormick filed a § 2255 motion arguing (1) the court denied him full allocution and a fair opportunity to challenge government witnesses, and (2) ineffective assistance of revocation counsel for failing to object to being labeled a “pimp” and for not presenting a witness/affidavit; the Government moved to dismiss.
The district court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss, denying relief and a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of full allocution / abuse of discretion at revocation	McCormick says court prevented him from fully addressing bogus state charges and contesting witness credibility	Government says McCormick had opportunity to speak and raised/failed to preserve the claim on appeal	Claim is barred (either raised and rejected on appeal or procedurally defaulted); alternatively meritless because allocution was adequate
Procedural default / successive collateral attack	McCormick contends allocution issue now merits collateral review	Government argues issue was or should have been raised on direct appeal and is procedurally barred absent cause & prejudice or actual innocence	Procedural default applies; McCormick showed neither cause nor actual innocence
Ineffective assistance of counsel at revocation (failure to object/call witness)	Counsel should have objected to characterization as a pimp and presented witness/affidavit to counter detectives' testimony	Government says counsel’s tactical decisions (calling witnesses, objections) are entitled to deference and McCormick’s claims are speculative	Strickland not satisfied: no deficient performance proven and no reasonable probability of a different outcome
Certificate of appealability	McCormick seeks COA to appeal § 2255 dismissal	Government argues claims are not debatable among reasonable jurists	COA denied; reasonable jurists would not find dismissal debatable

Aziz v. Alcolac Inc., 658 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 2011) (Twombly plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
United States v. Thomas, 627 F.3d 534 (4th Cir. 2010) (§ 2255 hearing requirement unless record conclusively shows no relief)
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard for plain‑unreasonableness review of revocation sentence)
United States v. Roane, 378 F.3d 382 (4th Cir. 2004) (issues raised and decided on direct appeal generally precluded in § 2255)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence requirement to overcome procedural default)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (cause and prejudice standard for procedural default)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
Sharpe v. Bell, 593 F.3d 372 (4th Cir. 2010) (application of Strickland in this circuit)
United States v. Dyess, 730 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2013) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions)
Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for certificate of appealability)