United States v. Tavarez Guzman, 1:10-cr-01179

Between 2007 and Nov. 2010 Minaya participated in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and heroin; he was arrested in Nov. 2010 during an undercover heroin sale.
A superseding indictment charged Minaya with (1) conspiring to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine and ≥100 g heroin, (2) distributing/possessing with intent to distribute heroin, and (3) distributing/possessing with intent to distribute ≥100 g heroin.
Co-defendant/witness Lisandro Guzman pleaded guilty, entered a cooperation agreement, and testified for the Government at Minaya’s 2012 trial; Guzman acknowledged prior inconsistent statements to prosecutors during proffers.
The jury convicted Minaya on all three counts; he was sentenced to 132 months’ imprisonment; the Second Circuit affirmed on direct appeal.
Minaya filed a pro se § 2255 motion alleging (1) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to consult and raise certain claims on appeal, and (2) prosecutorial misconduct based on alleged use of perjured testimony; the district court denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel	Minaya: counsel failed to consult, did not raise the prosecutorial-misconduct/perjury claim, and did not provide transcripts	Gov’t: counsel’s conduct falls within reasonable professional judgment; not obligated to raise every issue or to consult on all points; no prejudice shown	Denied — counsel’s performance not deficient and no prejudice under Strickland
Prosecutorial misconduct / use of perjured testimony	Minaya: Government knowingly presented false testimony (Guzman lied/inconsistencies) and presented a witness who violated his cooperation agreement	Gov’t: Guzman’s inconsistent proffer statements do not show perjury at trial; no evidence Government knew of false trial testimony; alleged cooperation‑agreement issues either irrelevant or factually unsupported	Denied — no false testimony proven, no Government knowledge, no reasonable likelihood of affecting the jury verdict
Failure to provide appellate transcript	Minaya: not given transcript to review, hampered his ability to participate in appeal	Gov’t: even if transcript not provided, no showing of resulting prejudice	Denied — lack of transcript does not show prejudice or different outcome
Certificate of appealability / good-faith appeal	Minaya seeks leave to appeal §2255 denial	Gov’t: denial appropriate; no substantial showing of constitutional violation	Denied — COA not issued; appeal would not be taken in good faith

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (prosecutor may not knowingly use false testimony)
Agurs v. United States, 427 U.S. 97 (standard for assessing the effect of false testimony on conviction)
Helmsley, United States v., 985 F.2d 1202 (sets elements for Napue/Agurs claim in Second Circuit)
Lynch v. Dolce, 789 F.3d 303 (appellate counsel not required to raise every nonfrivolous issue; Strickland applies to appeals)
Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303 (winnowing weaker arguments is hallmark of effective appellate advocacy)
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (pro se filings construed liberally)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a meaningful relationship or client satisfaction)
Cronic, United States v., 466 U.S. 648 (standards for counsel effectiveness and when prejudice may be presumed)