US v. James Flood, III

Circuit 4Aug 13, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 52/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial—without an evidentiary hearing—of James Everett Flood’s § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to secure a plea agreement. The court held that the record conclusively showed no deficient performance or prejudice, because any plea offer would have required Flood’s cooperation, and nothing indicated he would have accepted such terms.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether a defendant may raise a Strickland ineffective-assistance claim for failure to pursue plea bargaining when no formal plea offer was ever extended by the government.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 6

Strickland claim may proceed without a formal plea offer (defendant can show prejudice by demonstrating a lost opportunity to negotiate).

Circuit 2Circuit 5Circuit 7

A formal plea offer is required before a defendant may claim ineffective assistance in plea bargaining.

Circuit 4(this circuit)

Question expressly left open / undecided.

Conflict Summary

The Sixth Circuit permits such Strickland claims even when no formal plea offer existed, while several other circuits have held that a formal plea offer is a prerequisite. In this opinion, the Fourth Circuit expressly notes the disagreement among its sister circuits but declines to take a definitive position, leaving the question open.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:James Everett Flood, III
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:C. Justin Brown, Brown Law, Baltimore, MD
Appellee:Mary Jessica Kirsch Munoz, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, MD