Opinion ID: 167733
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Failures with Respect to Speedy Trial Act Claim

Text: 9 Mr. Taylor raises two related ineffective-assistance claims arising out of his Speedy Trial Act claim. First, he contends that while he was a pretrial detainee, he filed a pro se motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and informed his counsel that he had done so. Counsel for the plaintiff failed to notify the plaintiff that any motions filed stopped the clock for [Speedy Trial Act] purposes, he asserts, and the 14 days it took the court to deny the motion could have totally changed the outcome of the motion to dismiss. R. Vol. I Doc. 55 at 6. Second, he contends that if counsel had placed this information before this court on appeal, the outcome of the appellate court[']s decision may have been different. Id. 10 Both claims lack merit. We cannot fault his trial counsel for failing to anticipate (1) that his client would file a pro se pleading and (2) that the pleading would prove relevant (much less critical) to a future speedy-trial motion. Nor can we fault counsel for failing to advise the court of these matters on direct appeal, because Mr. Taylor does not explain (nor do we see) how doing so would have affected the outcome on appeal. No reasonable jurist would rule in Mr. Taylor's favor on either claim.