United States District Court, D. Columbia.
LAMONT MCDADE, also known as / / BARRY (1:00-cr-00105-PLF-4),
Defendant, Pro se, LORETTO, PA.
BYRON LAMONT MCDADE, also known as / / BARRY
(1:00-cr-00105-PLF-4), Defendant: Christopher Michael Davis,
Mary Elizabeth Davis, LEAD ATTORNEYS, DAVIS & DAVIS,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1:00-cr-00105-PLF-4), Plaintiff:
John Philip Dominguez, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, DC; Sherri
Lee Berthrong, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
Lamont Mcdade (1:13cv1066), Petitioner, Pro se, Loretto , PA.
FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge.
February 25, 2002, after a ten-day trial, a jury found
defendant Byron Lamont McDade guilty of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with the intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine. Most of the witnesses at trial
were his former co-defendants or others involved in
the conspiracy who had negotiated pleas with the government
involving cooperation and testimony. In fact, McDade was the
only one of those charged in this multi-defendant case to
have proceeded to trial. Regrettably, pursuant to the
then-mandatory pre- Booker sentencing guidelines,
the Court was required to sentence McDade to 324 months in
prison, a sentence which the Court described at the time as
" much more than sufficiently punitive."
See Judgment and Commitment (June 3, 2002), at 6.
McDade's conviction was affirmed on his direct appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, see United States v.
McDade, No. 02-3054, 2003 WL 22204126 (D.C. Cir. Sept.
16, 2003), and the Supreme Court denied his petition for a
writ of certiorari. See McDade v. United
States, 541 U.S. 911, 124 S.Ct. 1622, 158 L.Ed.2d 259
through new counsel, then filed a motion to vacate, set aside
or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He
challenged his sentence on constitutional grounds, relying on
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct.
738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He also asserted that he had
received ineffective assistance of counsel from both his
appellate lawyer and his trial lawyer, the latter because
trial counsel purportedly failed to interview and present the
testimony of three potential defense witnesses. This Court
denied the Booker motion and the challenge to the
effectiveness of appellate counsel without a hearing.
See United States v. McDade, Criminal No.
00-0105, Dkt. No. 345, (D.D.C. Jan. 5, 2006) (Memo. Op. &
January 15, 2008, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on
the defendant's ineffective assistance of trial counsel
claim. McDade testified about the information he had given to
trial counsel regarding three impeachment witnesses, and
trial counsel testified as to his trial strategy and his
reasons for not calling or interviewing those witnesses.
McDade also called one of those three witnesses to testify at
the hearing and submitted an affidavit from another. This
Court denied McDade's Section 2255 motion, finding that
trial counsel's decisions not to call the three witnesses
and not to interview two of them were not objectively
unreasonable, while the decision not to interview one of them
was. See United States v. McDade, 639
F.Supp.2d 77, 82-84 (D.D.C. 2009). Nevertheless, the Court
found that McDade had failed to show prejudice and therefore
was not entitled to relief. Id. at 85. After
briefing and oral argument, the D.C. Circuit affirmed.
See United States v. McDade, 699 F.3d 499,
403 U.S. App.D.C. 30 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
13, 2013, Mr. McDade, acting pro se, filed a new
motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He requests that his conviction be
vacated because of purported newly discovered evidence,
prosecutorial misconduct, and violations of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215
(1963). Rather than respond to McDade's Section 2255
motion, the United States moved to transfer that motion from
this Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The government argues that authorization from that court is
required before this Court can consider a second or
successive Section 2255 motion, and that, without
authorization from the D.C. Circuit, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider defendant's claims on their
merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Because the
Court did not believe that a pro se defendant should
be required to respond to this jurisdictional argument
without the assistance of counsel, it appointed Christopher
M. Davis and Mary E.
Davis to represent Mr. McDade in this matter, and they have
done so professionally ...