United States v. Young
664 F. App'x 686
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2007 Lt. Col. David Young (U.S. Army) disclosed confidential procurement information about an Afghan training contract to co-defendants Michael Taylor and Christopher Harris; Taylor’s company won the contract and Young was paid about $9 million.
- Young pled guilty to disclosure of procurement information and money laundering, admitted responsibility twice, and was sentenced to 42 months under a plea agreement (36–48 months). He did not pursue a direct appeal.
- Young filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for an inadequate pretrial investigation, (2) Brady violations/prosecutorial misconduct for withholding exculpatory materials, and (3) actual innocence.
- The district court denied relief, finding Young’s ineffective-assistance claims conclusory, his Brady/prosecutorial-misconduct claims speculative and unsupported, and his guilty plea knowing and voluntary; the court refused discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
- Young sought leave to file a second amended § 2255 motion and to supplement the record with an unfiled pro se Rule 59(e) motion; the district court did not rule on the amendment and the Tenth Circuit declined to accept the unfiled submission.
- The Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed the appeal, concluding reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and develop exculpatory evidence | Young: counsel did not adequately investigate witnesses or documents supporting innocence | Government/District: claims are conclusory; Young was satisfied with counsel at plea; counsel not required to pursue speculative leads | Denied — claims inadequately supported; no prejudice shown; counsel not ineffective |
| Whether the government violated Brady or engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by withholding exculpatory material | Young: government withheld documents and avoided possession of Brady material that would show innocence | Government/District: Young had or sought many of the same documents pre-plea; allegations speculative and non‑specific | Denied — Young failed to identify specific withheld exculpatory evidence or show influence on plea |
| Whether Young was entitled to discovery or an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 claims | Young: factual allegations justified discovery and a hearing to prove invalid plea and Brady claims | Government/District: discovery/hearing not required where motion, files, and record show no entitlement to relief; allegations speculative | Denied — no good cause for discovery; record conclusively shows no relief warranted |
| Whether amendment/supplementation of the § 2255 record should be allowed (second amendment and unfiled Rule 59(e) motion) | Young: sought to add co-defendant’s sentencing memorandum and an alleged new attachment showing intentional withholding | Government/District: sentencing memorandum not exculpatory; proposed amendments speculative/futile; unfiled pro se motion improperly tendered while represented | Denied — amendment would be futile; court refused to supplement record with unfiled submission |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard governs when to issue certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for showing that reasonable jurists could debate resolution of habeas claims)
- Curtis v. Chester, 626 F.3d 540 (discovery in § 2255 proceedings not routine; requires good cause)
- Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody’s Inv’r’s Servs., Inc., 175 F.3d 848 (denial of leave to amend is appropriate when amendment would be futile)
- United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187 (appellate rule against supplementing record with documents not filed in district court)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)