Jean v. United States

Background

A jury convicted Maxo Jean on January 31, 2014, of conspiring to commit mail, wire, and health-care fraud. The court sentenced him on December 4, 2014, to 120 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2016.

Jean previously filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a law that allows a federal prisoner to seek to vacate, set aside, or correct a conviction or sentence. The court denied that motion in 2018 as untimely and on the merits, and denied reconsideration in 2020. The Court of Appeals later transferred Jean’s current filing back to the district court for consideration as a nonsuccessive motion.

Jean’s Arguments

Proceeding without a lawyer, Jean argued that there was no record showing that at least 12 grand jurors indicted him. He also argued that the indictment was not presented in open court and that he never received the grand-jury transcript. In addition, he claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain favorable evidence and material covered by the Jencks Act, which concerns certain prior statements by government witnesses.

Court’s Analysis

The court first held that the motion was untimely. It relied on its earlier ruling that Jean’s first § 2255 petition had been filed too late and found that Jean offered no basis to reconsider that ruling.

The court also addressed the ineffective-assistance claim in the alternative. Under the test established by the Supreme Court, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. The court held that Jean did not identify any specific evidence or prior testimony that the government failed to produce. It further relied on its earlier finding, and the Court of Appeals’ observation, that the trial evidence against Jean was overwhelming. The court therefore concluded that Jean could not show that the alleged deficiencies changed the trial’s outcome.

The court rejected Jean’s grand-jury arguments as well. The record showed that Jean was arraigned in open court on the superseding indictment and waived a public reading of it. The court also explained that grand-jury proceedings are generally secret and that disclosure requires a particularized need. Jean had not shown grand-juror misconduct or another specific basis for obtaining the transcript. The court therefore held that he was not entitled to the grand-jury minutes and that not receiving them did not justify overturning his conviction.

Disposition

The court denied Jean’s § 2255 motion. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Jean had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Judge Chin signed the decision as a circuit judge sitting by designation.