# Jamerson v. United States

> District Court, N.D. Indiana · February 28, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10162138

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Indiana
- **Decided:** February 28, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10162138

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:19-CR-76 JD

LAMONT JAMERSON

OPINION AND ORDER
Lamont Jamerson pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
(DE 39.) The Court sentenced him to 144 months of imprisonment after finding that he qualified
as an armed career criminal. (DE 56.) Mr. Jamerson now moves to vacate his conviction and
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. (DE
63.) Mr. Jamerson also requests in a separate motion that the Court appoint an attorney. (DE 66.)
For the following reasons, the Court denies each of Mr. Jamerson’s motions.
A. Standard of Review
Section 2255(a) of Title 28 provides that a federal prisoner “claiming the right to be
released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws
of the United States . . . may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or
correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The Seventh Circuit has recognized that § 2255 relief
is appropriate only for “an error of law that is jurisdictional, constitutional, or constitutes a
fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Harris v.
United States, 366 F.3d 593, 594 (7th Cir. 2004). Relief under § 2255 is extraordinary because it
seeks to reopen the criminal process to a person who has already had an opportunity of full
process. Almonacid v. United States, 476 F.3d 518, 521 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Kafo v. United
States, 467 F.3d 1063, 1068 (7th Cir. 2006)).
B. Discussion
(1) Request for Counsel
Mr. Jamerson has requested appointed counsel to assist him with his petition under
§ 2255. (DE 66.) The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly held that “a prisoner seeking a sentence

reduction does not have a right to appointed counsel.” United States v. Johnson, 304 F. App’x
464, 465 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also LaClair v. United States, 374 F.2d 486, 489
(7th Cir. 1967) (“We hold that the law in this circuit is that appointment of counsel for indigents
in habeas corpus and section 2255 proceedings rests in the sound discretion of district courts
unless denial would result in fundamental unfairness impinging on due process rights.”). After
all, “[t]he right of access to the courts protects prisoners from being shut out of court; it does not
exist to enable the prisoner to litigate effectively once in court.” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,
657 (7th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). However, if an evidentiary hearing is required, the
Court must appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner. United States v. Sewell, No. 1:07-CR-53-
HAB, 2020 WL 7632309, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 2020) (“If an evidentiary hearing is held, the

district court must appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner.”).
As explained below, the Court believes that Mr. Jamerson’s arguments are baseless and
that no evidentiary hearing is required. Therefore, it denies his request for counsel.
(2) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Mr. Jamerson argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Sixth

Amendment provides a criminal defendant with the right to counsel, U.S. Const. amend. VI, and
“inherent in this right is that the defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel.”
United States v. Recendiz, 557 F.3d 511, 531 (7th Cir. 2009). In order to prevail on his claim for
ineffective assistance of counsel, Mr. Jamerson must establish “that his ‘counsel’s performance
was deficient’ and that ‘the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.’” Koons v. United
States, 639 F.3d 348, 351 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984)). Meaning, he must establish “(1) that his attorney’s representation fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for

the ineffective assistance, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” Recendiz,
557 F.3d at 531. The Court finds that Mr. Jamerson has not established either element.
Mr. Jamerson argues that his counsel was deficient because he did not contact witnesses
and obtain the needed evidentiary submissions for his sentencing. (DE 63 at 4.) Mr. Jamerson
asserts that had his counsel done a “proper investigation,” he would not have received a four-
level sentence enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense
under Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). (Id.)
This argument fails because Mr. Jamerson’s Guideline range did not depend on §
2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Rather, his ultimate Guideline range was driven by his classification as an armed
career criminal. An armed career criminal is an individual who “violates section 922(g) of [Title

18] and has three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of this title
for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one
another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Mr. Jamerson pleaded guilty to violating § 922(g) and his
Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) indicated that he had three prior convictions for violent
felonies. (DE 43 ¶¶ 43–46, 51–52.) Accordingly, Mr. Jamerson was classified as an armed career
criminal.
Under Guidelines § 4B1.4, as an armed career criminal, his offense level was the greatest
of: “(1) the offense level applicable from Chapters Two and Three; or (2) the offense level from
§4B1.1 (Career Offender) if applicable; or (3)(A) 34, if the defendant used or possessed the
firearm or ammunition in connection with either a [crime of violence or controlled substance
offense]; or (B) 33, otherwise.” Under Chapter 2, the PSR calculated Mr. Jamerson’s adjusted
offense level as 28. (DE 43 ¶ 25.) The PSR came to this adjusted offense level after giving him a
four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense under

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). (DE 43 ¶ 21.) It is this enhancement that Mr. Jamerson alleges his counsel
should have objected to. However, this enhancement ended up being irrelevant to Mr.
Jamerson’s total offense level because the offense level under Chapter 2, 28, was less than his
offense level as an armed career criminal, 33. Under § 4B1.4, the offense level of 33 applied
since it was greater than the offense level under Chapter 2. This would be the case even if Mr.
Jamerson’s sentencing enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) did not apply, since 24 would still
be less than 33. Ultimately, Mr. Jamerson’s total offense level was 30, after reducing his offense
level by 3 points for acceptance of responsibility. (DE 43 ¶ 29.) This was the offense level that
was used to calculate his guideline imprisonment range. (Id. ¶ 130.)
The above shows that raising an objection to the enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)

would have had no impact on Mr. Jamerson’s guideline range. Additionally, had an objection
been raised over the enhancement, the Court would not have had to resolve the dispute. See Fed.
R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) ([T]he court . . . must — for any disputed portion of the presentence
report or other controverted matter — rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is
unnecessary . . . because the matter will not affect sentencing . . . .” (emphasis added)).
Since Mr. Jamerson’s argument is predicated on an inconsequential sentencing
enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), the Court finds that he cannot demonstrate deficient
performance or prejudice. See United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 364, 365 (7th Cir. 1985) (“A
lawyer, after all, has no duty, indeed no right, to pester a court with frivolous arguments . . . .”);
see also Johnson v. United States, No. 18-CV-02111-JPG, 2020 WL 2419508, at *5 (S.D. Ill.
May 12, 2020) (“The failure to make a meritless argument does not rise to the level of ineffective
assistance.”).1
Mr. Jamerson also briefly argues that his counsel ”failed to advise [him] of [his right to

seek a] direct appeal. (DE 63 at 3–4.) However, even if counsel failed to advise him, the Court
advised him of that right at his sentencing. After reviewing his waiver of appeal in his plea
agreement, the Court advised Mr. Jamerson “that you still have the right to file an appeal even
though it may be subject to dismissal given [the] waiver.” (DE 71 at 28.) The Court then advised
him that “any notice of appeal must be filed within 14 calendar days of the judgment.” (Id.)
Therefore, even if his counsel failed to inform him of his right to appeal, Mr. Jamerson suffered
no prejudice from this failure.
Lastly, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted. A hearing is not
required if ‘the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is
entitled to no relief.” Martin v. United States, 789 F.3d 703, 706 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting 28

U.S.C. § 2255). Here, the record clearly shows that Mr. Jamerson is not entitled to relief.
(3) Certificate of Appealability
The Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A certificate of
appealability may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2255

1 The Court also notes that Mr. Jamerson failed to provide the specific information the investigation
would have produced. Long v. United States, 847 F.3d 916, 920 (7th Cir. 2017) (“When the purported
deficiency is based on a failure to investigate, [the petitioner must allege] what the investigation would
have produced.”). He does not say who the witness is that his counsel should have contacted or what
information that witness would have provided. This is insufficient. See U.S. ex rel. Cross v. DeRobertis, 811
F.2d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir. 1987) (“The district court simply cannot fulfill its obligation under Strickland to
assess prejudice until the petitioner has met his burden of supplying sufficiently precise information.”).
Proceedings for the United States District Courts. The substantial showing standard is met when
“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have
been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)); see Young v. United States, 523 F.3d 717
(7th Cir. 2008). For the reasons the Court already discussed in denying the motion, the Court
does not believe that the resolution of this motion is debatable or that the issues deserve
encouragement to proceed further.
The Court advises Mr. Jamerson, though, that pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, when the district judge denies a certificate of appealability, the applicant
may request a circuit judge to issue the certificate. If Mr. Jamerson wishes to appeal this
judgment, a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after the judgment is entered. Rule 11,
Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts; Fed. R. App. P.
4(a); Guyton v. United States, 453 F.3d 425, 427 (7th Cir. 2006).

C. Conclusion
The Court DENIES Mr. Jamerson’s motion to vacate under § 2255. (DE 63.) The Court
also DENIES his request for counsel. (DE 66). Furthermore, Mr. Jamerson’s motion for a status
hearing on his §2255 motion is now MOOT. (DE 73.) Lastly, the Court DENIES the issuance of
a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.

SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: February 28, 2022

/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Chief Judge
United States District Court

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10162138. Public record. Not legal advice.