Hare v. U.S.

Ct. of Appeals denied defendant’s motion for order authorizing Dist. Ct. to entertain second motion for collateral review where defendant sought to challenge his drug conspiracy conviction on grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of pre-trial plea offer from govt. While defendant argued that second petition for collateral relief was appropriate since recent decision in Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399, supported his claim, Frye decision did not announce new rule and other court decision had supported defendant’s claim at time of first collateral attack. Ct also found that defendant did not timely raise issue where he knew about non-communicated plea offer for eight years.