United States v. Willoughby, 144 F. Supp. 3d 935

Background

Defendant Anthony Willoughby, a pro se federal prisoner, was convicted by a jury of sex trafficking a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1); the jury found he procured SW’s prostitution by force, fraud, or coercion, triggering a 15-year mandatory minimum and resulting in a 360-month within-Guidelines sentence.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal (United States v. Willoughby, 742 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2014)).
Willoughby filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising multiple grounds: defects in the indictment and jury instructions, and numerous ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims (trial and appellate counsel).
He later asserted, in reply, a claim invoking Johnson v. United States (invalidating the ACCA residual clause) as affecting his career-offender designation under the Sentencing Guidelines (§ 4B1.1).
The district court reviewed the § 2255 claims (grouping overlapping issues), denied relief on all claims, and granted a certificate of appealability solely as to the Johnson-retroactivity issue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Indictment and jury instructions defective (elements/double jeopardy/constructive amendment)	Willoughby argued § 1591(a) and (b) create separate offenses; indictment/instructions failed to allege victim <14 or properly set elements, risking double jeopardy and lacking jury findings	Government: §1591 defines a single offense; (b)(1) raises sentencing minimums, not separate crimes; indictment adequately alleged elements and timely discovery cured any notice concerns	Court: Claims meritless; statute misread by Willoughby; indictment and instructions were sufficient; no constructive amendment shown
Ineffective assistance for failing to raise above indictment/instruction claims	Counsel was deficient for not challenging indictment/instructions at trial and on appeal	Government: Arguments were meritless; omitting meritless claims is reasonable per Strickland	Court: Counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims
Trial counsel errors (investigation, cross-examination, objections, evidentiary strategy, advising re: testify/plea)	Willoughby listed 32 alleged failures (investigation, impeachment of witness SW, suppression, prosecutorial misconduct, failure to test evidence, bad plea advice, etc.)	Government: Counsel pursued suppression motions, strategically limited cross-examination to avoid alienating jury, complied with court rulings, and Willoughby cannot show Strickland prejudice; many claims barred or harmless	Court: Most claims either procedurally barred, strategic, non-prejudicial, or meritless; overall counsel not constitutionally ineffective
Retroactive effect of Johnson to Guidelines career-offender designation	Willoughby argued Johnson voids the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and thus his sentence can be vacated on collateral review	Government: Johnson is retroactive as to ACCA (substantive) but does not retroactively invalidate Guidelines career-offender designations on collateral review	Held: Court concluded Johnson does not apply retroactively to Sentencing Guidelines designations on collateral review; granted COA only on that question

Key Cases Cited

Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (procedural default and scope of § 2255 relief)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2003) (application of Strickland in Sixth Circuit)
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (retroactivity: substantive vs. procedural rules)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (new rules apply to cases pending on direct review)
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (indictment valid on its face suffices)
Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225 (presumption that juries follow instructions)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (Confrontation Clause—testimonial statements)
United States v. Joseph, 781 F.2d 549 (6th Cir. 1986) (indictment need not mirror statutory language exactly)