USA v. Willis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America,
Respondent-Plaintiff,
v.
Rayjon Matthew Willis,
Petitioner-Defendant.
Criminal No. 22-153 (DWF/JFD)
Civil No. 25-733 (DWF)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner-Defendant Rayjon Matthew Willis’s
pro se motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 75.) The United States of
America (the “Government”) opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 87.) For the reasons set
forth below, the Court denies the motion to vacate.
BACKGROUND
In June 2022, law enforcement received a tip that Willis, who had previous felony
convictions, possessed a handgun. (Doc. No. 29 ¶ 7.) Following the tip, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) agents obtained and executed a search warrant
for Willis’s apartment. (Id. ¶ 9.) During the search, the agents found a Ruger LCP
handgun, a drum magazine, an extended magazine, and a Ruger magazine containing six
rounds of ammunition. (Id. ¶ 10.) The agents also seized Willis’s phone and later found
text messages between Willis and a friend, K.M., which indicated that K.M. purchased
the drum magazine for Willis. (Id.¶ 12.) The agents later interviewed K.M. who stated
CASE 0:22-cr-00153-DWF-JFD Doc. 89 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 8

2
that she bought the drum magazine and an extended magazine for Willis and that Willis
asked her to buy him a gun. (Id. ¶ 14; Doc. No. 87-2.)
Willis was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm on July 20, 2022.
(Doc. No. 1.) Robert A. Lengeling was appointed to serve as his counsel for the case.
(Doc. No. 10.) As part of the Government’s discovery disclosures, Lengeling was given
an audio recording of K.M.’s interview. (Doc. No. 87 at 2; see Doc. No. 87-1 ¶ 11.) In
September 2022, Willis entered a guilty plea. (Doc. Nos. 22, 23.) Willis did not express
any dissatisfaction with Lengeling’s services until January 2023 when he filed a pro se
motion for new counsel. (See Doc. No. 35.) In the motion, he expressed frustration with
the frequency of his communications with Lengeling and Lengeling’s characterization of
K.M.’s interview. (Id. at 3-4.) After speaking with Lengeling, Willis withdrew his
motion for new counsel at sentencing. (See Doc. No. 40.)
On February 2, 2023, the Court sentenced Willis to 180 months in prison and five
years of supervised release. (Doc. No. 41.) Willis is currently incarcerated at FCI Pekin
with an anticipated release date of April 17, 2035. Find an Inmate., Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (last visited Mar. 19, 2026). Willis now moves
to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel,
improper application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), and that 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. (Doc. No. 75.)
CASE 0:22-cr-00153-DWF-JFD Doc. 89 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 8

3
DISCUSSION
I. 	Legal Standard
A federal prisoner may move to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentence on
grounds that “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States,” “the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence,” “the
sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law,” or their sentence “is
otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). If the court finds such a
defect in sentencing, “the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall
discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as
may appear appropriate.” Id. § 2255(b).
A § 2255 request for relief “is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights
and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and, if
uncorrected, would result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Apfel,
97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 1996). A defendant may not use a § 2255 motion to
relitigate issues that were raised and decided on a direct appeal unless there was an
intervening change in the law or newly discovered evidence. English v. United States,
998 F.2d 609, 613 (8th Cir. 1993). Additionally, a defendant may not raise issues that
could have been raised on direct appeal unless they can show cause and actual prejudice,
or that they are actually innocent. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998).
To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must show:
(1) counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the
defendant’s case. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see also Apfel,
CASE 0:22-cr-00153-DWF-JFD Doc. 89 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 8

4
97 F.3d at 1076 (applying the Strickland standard to an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim under § 2255). Courts may address the prongs in any order and need not address
both prongs if the defendant fails to meet their burden on one. Strickland, 466 U.S. at
697.
On the first prong, courts “consider counsel’s performance objectively and gauge
whether it was reasonable ‘under prevailing professional norms’ and ‘considering all the
circumstances.’” Fields v. United States, 201 F.3d 1025, 1027 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). Courts must be “highly deferential” and “indulge a strong
presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional
assistance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. On the second prong, a “defendant must show
that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the
result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694.
II. 	Analysis
Willis makes five claims: three ineffective assistance of counsel claims, one claim
regarding the application of the ACCA, and one claim regarding the constitutionality of
§ 922(g)(1). The Court addresses each claim in turn.
A. 	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Audio Recording and Guilty Plea
Willis alleges that Lengeling lied about the potential impact of the K.M. interview
at trial, which scared him into taking a plea deal. (Doc. No. 75 at 1.) Willis does not
sufficiently allege deficient performance. Lying about evidence or failing to share
exculpatory evidence with a defendant would certainly constitute deficient performance,
CASE 0:22-cr-00153-DWF-JFD Doc. 89 Filed 03/27/26 Page 4 of 8

5
but Lengeling’s characterization of the K.M. interview was a fair characterization. The
Court has reviewed the audio recording of K.M.’s interview with the ATF agents. During
the interview, K.M. said she bought Willis a magazine and that he asked her to buy him a
gun. Those statements could have been damaging for Willis at trial. Willis has not
shown deficient performance, so this claim fails.
B. 	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Lack of Communication
Willis alleges that there was a lack of communication by Lengeling. (Id.)
Lengeling provided the Court with a summary of all communications between himself
and Willis. (Doc. No. 87-1 ¶¶ 5-7.) Over the course of about six months, Lengeling met
with Willis at least seven times via Zoom, at least three times in person, and spoke with
him several times over the phone. (Id.) This is not deficient performance. Additionally,
to the extent that Willis suggests Lengeling should have visited in-person more often
rather than Zoom visits, he also fails to show deficient performance. During the fall of
2022, the Sherburne County Jail was limiting in-person attorney meetings due to
COVID-19. (See Doc. No. 87 at 14-15; Doc. No. 87-1 ¶ 4.) Lengeling cannot be faulted
for jail policies made in response to a public health emergency. Moreover, Willis has not
shown any prejudice based on the alleged lack of communication or the method of
communication. Willis’s second claim fails.
C. 	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Mental Health Evaluation
Willis alleges that Lengeling should have requested a mental health evaluation.
(Doc. No. 75 at 1.) Although mental health evaluations are important and valuable for
sentencing, there was substantial information about Willis’s mental health in the record at
CASE 0:22-cr-00153-DWF-JFD Doc. 89 Filed 03/27/26 Page 5 of 8

6
the time of sentencing. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 29 ¶¶ 91-96.) Willis does not explain how an
additional mental health evaluation would have changed the result of his sentencing. The
Court sentenced Willis to the mandatory minimum of 180 months. Additional mental
health information would not have changed that sentence as it was statutorily required
and there is no mental health exception. Willis fails to allege the prejudice prong, so his
third claim fails.
D. 	ACCA Challenge
Willis argues that his prior domestic assault conviction should not have qualified
as a predicate offense under the ACCA. (Doc. No. 75 at 1.) Willis litigated this issue on
direct appeal. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit found that this Court did not err in finding
that Willis’s prior convictions qualified as predicate offenses under the ACCA, even the
domestic assault conviction. United States v. Willis, No. 231343, 2023 WL 7274757,
at *1 (8th Cir. Nov. 3, 2023) (per curiam). Because this issue was addressed on direct
appeal, Willis must show that there was an intervening change in the law or newly
discovered evidence. He failed to show either of these things, so this claim fails.
E. 	Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
Willis alleges that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates his Second Amendment right to
bear arms. (Doc. No. 75 at 1.) To start, this is an issue that could have been raised on
direct appeal, but was not, so Willis needs to show cause and actual prejudice, or that he
is actually innocent. Willis makes no allegations regarding cause or prejudice and no
claim that he is actually innocent. Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit has found that
§ 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment standards announced in New
CASE 0:22-cr-00153-DWF-JFD Doc. 89 Filed 03/27/26 Page 6 of 8

7
York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi,
602 U.S. 680 (2024). See United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024).
Accordingly, Willis’s fifth claim also fails.
In conclusion, Willis fails to meet the § 2255 standard on any of his claims, so the
Court denies his motion to vacate.
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
A § 2255 motion can be dismissed without a hearing when: (1) the defendant’s
allegations, if accepted as true, would not entitle them to relief; or (2) the allegations
cannot be accepted as true because they are contradicted by the record, are inherently
incredible, or are conclusions, rather than statements of fact. Delgado v. United States,
162 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1998). Here, most of Willis’s allegations, even if accepted as
true, do not entitle him to relief because he failed to make allegations of other required
elements. All other allegations are conclusory or contradicted by the record.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A defendant cannot appeal a final order denying a motion under § 2255 without a
certificate of appealability (“COA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); Fed. R. App.
P. 22(b)(1). A court cannot grant a COA unless the applicant has made “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A substantial
showing requires showing that an issue is “debatable among reasonable jurists, a court
could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings.” Cox v.
Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997). Here, no issue raised is debatable among
reasonable jurists. Therefore, no COA shall be issued.
CASE 0:22-cr-00153-DWF-JFD Doc. 89 Filed 03/27/26 Page 7 of 8

8
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Petitioner-Defendant Rayjon Matthew Willis’s pro se motion to vacate
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. [75]) is DENIED.
2. 	No evidentiary hearing is required in this matter.
3. 	No Certificate of Appealability will be issued to Petitioner-Defendant.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 27, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:22-cr-00153-DWF-JFD Doc. 89 Filed 03/27/26 Page 8 of 8