United States of America v. Gray et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RICKY JACKSON,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.: 1:25-cv-01424
1:19-cr-00147
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER
(Resolves Doc. 927)
This matter is before the Court upon Ricky Jackson’s (“Jackson”) Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct a Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 927) (the “Motion”). For the
reasons set forth herein, the Motion is DENIED.
I. 	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Jackson with conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute and to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C) (Count One) and use of a communication facility in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (Count 36). Doc. 1.
Jackson pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. Doc. 601. On February 14, 2022, the Court
sentenced Jackson to 188 months’ imprisonment. Doc. 720. Jackson filed the Notice of Appeal
(Doc. 725), and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. See United States v. Jackson, No. 22-3164, 2024 U.S.
App. LEXIS 4279 (6th Cir. Feb. 23, 2024). The United States Supreme Court denied his petition
for a writ of certiorari. Doc. 903. He now proceeds with the Motion, wherein he raises several
alleged errors of this Court and argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
Case: 1:19-cr-00147-JRA Doc #: 943 Filed: 12/03/25 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A prisoner in custody that moves to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 must show that (i) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws
of the United States, (ii) the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, (iii) the
sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or (iv) the sentence is otherwise subject
to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
III. 	ANALYSIS
a. 	Drug Quantity
Jackson first argues that the Court inappropriately calculated the drug quantities by relying
on the statements of an unreliable confidential informant to do so. Doc. 927 at p. 4. When an issue
is addressed by the appellate court on direct appeal, petitioner cannot use a § 2255 motion to
relitigate the issue, absent an intervening change in law. Oliver v. United States, 90 F.3d 177, 180
(6th Cir. 1996). The issue of whether the confidential informant’s reports were appropriately
corroborated was addressed on direct appeal, when the Sixth Circuit affirmed both the Court’s
reliance on the informant’s statements and the Court’s estimation of drug quantities. See United
States v. Jackson, No. 22-3164, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4279, at *4–5 (6th Cir. Feb. 23, 2024).
Therefore, the matter cannot be relitigated. See Oliver at 180. Accordingly, this ground for relief
is denied.
b. 	Sentencing Enhancement
Jackson also claims the Court erred when it applied a sentencing enhancement for
maintaining a drug premises [pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12)]. Doc. 927 at p. 5. However,
this issue meets the same end as ground one because it was affirmed on direct appeal. See Oliver,
90 F.3d at 180; See Jackson, at *6–7. Accordingly, ground two is denied.
Case: 1:19-cr-00147-JRA Doc #: 943 Filed: 12/03/25 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
c. 	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Last, Jackson claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Jackson provides a
verbose argument that appears to raise claims of ineffective assistance related to grounds one and
two, in addition to a general argument that trial counsel could not have been effective because in
2024, the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct recommended her disbarment. Doc. 927-1 at pp. 3–
4; Doc. 927-2.
A motion made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the appropriate vehicle for raising a claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Daniel, 956 F.2d 540, 543 (6th Cir. 1992)
(“Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are best brought by a defendant in a post-conviction
proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 so that the parties can develop an adequate record on the
issue.”) The test of counsel’s effectiveness was set forth by the Supreme Court in Strickland v.
Washington. The measure used is whether the representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). To succeed on their claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show both a deficient performance and
resulting prejudice. Id. at 688. Counsel’s performance is evaluated considering all circumstances,
based on their perspective at the time. Snider v. United States, 908 F.3d 183, 192 (6th Cir. 2018)
(citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). The second part of the Strickland test – whether there was
resulting prejudice – is more difficult. To succeed on this prong, a defendant must prove that there
is “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” Bullard v. United States, 937 F.3d 654, 661 (6th Cir. 2019)
(citation omitted).
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment as to the issues of drug quantities and the
sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, Jackson has not established any resulting prejudice due to
Case: 1:19-cr-00147-JRA Doc #: 943 Filed: 12/03/25 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
counsel’s alleged errors. See id. As to Jackson’s general argument that trial counsel’s later
disbarment is evidence of her ineffective assistance in his case, this argument is without merit. He
does not argue that trial counsel was disbarred for any action taken in his case and thus has not
met the standard set forth by Strickland.
Courts have declined to adopt a per se rule that an attorney who is subject to discipline or
disbarment for conduct unrelated to the representation of a defendant in a criminal case
should be deemed to have provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in the
criminal proceeding.
Chandler v. Ross Corr. Inst., No. 2:10-cv-1150, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153927, at *23 (S.D. Ohio
Dec. 27, 2011) (quoting United States v. Grooms, No. 88-80651-16, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46213,
at *1, n.1 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2009)). Therefore, this ground for relief is also denied.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Jackson’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence
(Doc. 927) is DENIED.1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that Jackson may
not take an appeal from the Court’s decision in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which
to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 3, 2025 /s/ John R. Adams
DATE 	JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 	Jackson also requests an evidentiary hearing. Doc. 927-1 at p. 5. In a § 2255 proceeding, “no evidentiary
hearing is necessary when a movant’s claims cannot be accepted as true because they are contradicted by the
record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than statements of fact.” Norwood v. United States, No.
23-1684, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2683, at *5 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2025) (quoting Arrendondo v. United States,
178 F.3d 778, 782 (6th Cir. 1999). As Jackson’s claims lack merit, an evidentiary hearing is not necessary.
Case: 1:19-cr-00147-JRA Doc #: 943 Filed: 12/03/25 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>