Jones v. United States of America

Filing 3

RULE 4 ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 4/26/18. IT IS ORDERED that the government file a response to the motion on or before 5/25/18. The court will address further scheduling on review of the response. (cc: all counsel, plaintiff)(jad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DANNY K. JONES
Petitioner-defendant,
v.

Case No. 18-C-0630
(Criminal Case No. 14-CR-196)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-plaintiff.

RULE 4 ORDER
Petitioner Danny Jones pleaded guilty to access device fraud and aggravated identity
theft, and on June 15, 2016, Judge Clevert sentenced him to 70 months in prison, three years
of supervised release, and restitution in the amount of $219,022.52. Petitioner filed a notice
of appeal, but the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as frivolous. On April 19, 2018,
petitioner filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The matter was
assigned to me due to Judge Clevert’s retirement.
Section 2255 allows a federal prisoner to challenge his sentence on “the ground that the
sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the
court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of
the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. §
2255(a). The district court must conduct a preliminary review of such a motion. If it plainly
appears the movant is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion. Otherwise, the
judge must order the government to respond. Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255
Proceedings.

Petitioner argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, failing to review
discovery and advise him during the plea process, failing to notice a possible defect in the
indictment, failing to present mitigation arguments at sentencing, and failing to challenge
guideline enhancements for loss amount and role in the offense. Denial of the effective
assistance of counsel is a constitutional claim, which may be raised for the first time on
collateral attack under § 2255. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003).
Further, because I was not the original trial judge in this matter a response from the
government would be helpful in evaluating the motion.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the government file a response to the motion on
or before May 25, 2018. The court will address further scheduling on review of the response.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 26th day of April, 2018.
/s Lynn Adelman
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2