USA v. Jackson et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America, 	Crim. No. 19-185 (SRN)
Plaintiff,
v. 	ORDER ON RULE 60
MOTIONS AND
SUCCESSIVE 2255 MOTIONS
Ronald Jermaine Jackson (01),
William Charles Graham (02),
Defendants
Nathan Hoye Nelson, Craig Baune, and William Mattessich, Office of the United States
Attorney, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415, for Plaintiff
United States of America
Ronald 	Jermaine 	Jackson, 	Reg. 	No. 	22096-041, 	FCI 	Greenville, 	P.O. 	Box 	5000,
Greenville, IL 62246, Pro Se Defendant
William Charles Graham, Reg. No. 22097-041, FCI Greenville, P.O. Box 5000, Greenville,
IL 62246, Pro Se Defendant
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court are the following motions filed by Defendants Ronald
Jermaine Jackson and William Charles Graham: 	(1) Expedited Request for Relief From
Final Judgment Per Rule 60(b)(6) (“Rule 60 Motions”) [Doc. Nos. 839, 841, 853, 854, 856,
857]; (2) Motions to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. Nos. 866 & 872]; (3) Motions
to Amend/Correct Prior Motions to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. Nos. 869 &
875]; (4) Motions for Evidentiary Hearings [Doc. Nos. 870, 876, 883, 886]; and (5)
CASE 0:19-cr-00185-SRN-KMM Doc. 894 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 11

2
Amended Motions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. Nos. 885 & 882]. 	For the reasons set
forth below, the motions are denied.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In July 2019, the Government charged Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham with two
crimes: (1) Interference with Commerce by Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951
(commonly known as Hobbs Act robbery), and (2) Using, Carrying, and Brandishing a
Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1)(A)(ii). 	(Indict. [Doc. No. 1].) 	Following a bench trial, the Court issued its
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Convictions [Doc. No. 258] in
October 2020, finding Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham guilty on both counts. In June 2021,
the Court sentenced Mr. Jackson to a term of imprisonment totaling 141 months (84 months
on Count 1 and 57 months on Count 2, running consecutively) [Doc. No. 487], and
sentenced Mr. Graham to term of imprisonment totaling 294 months (84 months on Count
1 and 210 months on Count 2, running consecutively) [Doc. No. 489].
Subsequently, Mr. Jackson filed pro se direct appeals [Doc. Nos. 491, 539] and a
pro se Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 760], none of which were
successful [Doc. Nos. 703, 785, 807]. 	Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit denied Mr.
Jackson’s request to file a successive habeas petition [Doc. Nos. 813].
Mr. Graham also filed pro se direct appeals [Doc. Nos. 492, 540], and a pro se
Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 597], none of which were successful
[Doc. Nos. 601, 602, 677, 690]. As with his co-defendant, the Eighth Circuit denied Mr.
Graham’s requests to file successive habeas petitions [Doc. Nos. 735, 751, 778, 815].
CASE 0:19-cr-00185-SRN-KMM Doc. 894 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 11

3
Two months later, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham returned to this Court, ostensibly
seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), (4) and (d)(1)-(3). (Defs.’
R. 60 Mots. [Doc. Nos. 817 & 818] at 1.) Mr. Graham had previously sought relief under
Rule 60(b), but the Court denied his motion after conducting a brief review and finding the
motion actually constituted a second or successive collateral attack under § 2255 that was
not authorized. 	(See Oct. 25, 2023 Order [Doc. No. 786] at 6–7.) 	The Court found the
same was true with respect to Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham’s subsequent Rule 60 motions
and denied relief. (Feb. 10, 2025 Orders [Doc. Nos. 819 & 820]; Mar. 4, 2025 Orders in
Response [Doc. Nos. 831 & 832].) 	Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham appealed the Court’s
denial of relief [Doc. Nos. 821, 822, 835, 837].
While their appeals were pending, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham filed the first of
their 16 pending motions [Doc. Nos. 839 & 841], once again seeking relief from judgment
under Rule 60.
The Eighth Circuit denied Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham’s appeals of the Court’s
February 10, 2025 Orders, and issued mandates in July 2025, [Doc. Nos. 843, 844, 845,
846], followed by judgments on the appellants’ successive 2255 motions and mandates on
the same. [Doc. Nos. 847–52].
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham filed the remaining 14 of their 16
pending motions.
CASE 0:19-cr-00185-SRN-KMM Doc. 894 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 11

4
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. Rule 60 Motions [Doc. Nos. 839, 841, 853, 854, 856, 857]
The instant Rule 60 Motions, like the previous motions, implicate the habeas corpus
statute for collateral relief, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Rule 60(b) addresses the grounds for which
a litigant may seek relief from judgment, including fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct
by an opposing party, because of a void judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3)-(4), or, for
the reason that Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham invoke here, “any other reason that justifies
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a prisoner in federal custody has a limited opportunity to
challenge the constitutionality, legality, or jurisdictional basis of a sentence imposed by a
court. The law limits a defendant to one 2255 motion unless he obtains certification for a
second or successive motion from the appropriate Court of Appeals. 	See 28 U.S.C. §§
2244, 2255(e), (h). A defendant may not bypass the authorization requirement of § 2255
by purporting to invoke some other procedure. See United States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d
1034, 1036 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curium) (“It is well-established that inmates may not
bypass the authorization requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) for filing a second or
successive § 2254 or § 2255 action by purporting to invoke some other procedure.”), cert.
denied, 545 U.S. 1135 (2005).
The Eighth Circuit advises district courts, when dealing with a purported Rule 60
motion following the dismissal of a habeas petition, to “conduct[] a brief initial inquiry to
determine whether the allegations in the Rule 60(b) motion in fact amount to a second or
successive collateral attack under . . . 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d
CASE 0:19-cr-00185-SRN-KMM Doc. 894 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 11

5
813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002). 	The Supreme Court has held that the procedural requirements
for second or successive habeas petitions also apply to motions for relief from judgment
under Rule 60 that are essentially 2255 motions. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531
(2005). If the motion is “actually a second or successive habeas petition [that substantively
challenges a federal conviction or sentence], the district court should dismiss it for failure
to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals or, in its discretion, [ ] transfer the [ ]
motion to the Court of Appeals.” Boyd, 304 F.3d at 814.
As noted, both Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham have filed unsuccessful prior 2255
motions and Rule 60 motions that were properly construed as successive 2255 motions.
The Court therefore must conduct a brief review to determine if the allegations in the
instant Rule 60 Motions amount to successive attacks under 2255. See id.
In the instant Rule 60 Motions, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham argue that the
Indictment was “constructively amended” to include, along with Hobbs Act robbery, “the
separate enhanced punishment of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence.” 	(Rule 60 Mots. at 2–3.) 	This is a substantive legal
challenge that Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham have raised in past motions. (See Doc. Nos.
677 at 7–9; 785 at 3–4; 817 at 5–17; 818 at 5–17.) Accordingly, the Court construes their
Rule 60 Motions as successive 2255 motions. Because Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham failed
to obtain precertification from the Eighth Circuit prior to asserting these claims, their Rule
60 Motions are unauthorized and the Court denies them.
CASE 0:19-cr-00185-SRN-KMM Doc. 894 Filed 04/09/26 Page 5 of 11

6
B. Motions to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. Nos. 866 & 872]
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham have also filed new 2255 Motions without seeking
precertification from the Eighth Circuit. In their instant 2255 Motions, they assert familiar
legal arguments under the Double Jeopardy Clause, challenging their convictions under 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and the district court’s jurisdiction based on the alleged lack of a
proper indictment. (Graham 2255 Mot. [Doc. No. 866] at 4; Jackson 2255 Mot. [Doc. No.
872] at 4–5.) 	In the past, they unsuccessfully raised these substantive arguments. 	(See
Doc. Nos. 677, 785, 786, 819, 820.) 	Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham filed the instant
successive 2255 Motions without obtaining the Eighth Circuit’s precertification, as
required. Accordingly, the Court denies their 2255 Motions.
C. Motions to Amend/Correct Prior Motions to Vacate [Doc. Nos. 869 &
875]
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham also move to amend or correct their initial 2255
Motions. 	In particular, Mr. Jackson seeks to amend or correct his 2255 Motion filed in
July 2023 [Doc. No. 760], and Mr. Graham seeks to amend or correct his 2255 Motion
filed in November 2021 [Doc. No. 597].
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to 2255 motions. 	United States v.
Harrison, 469 F.3d 1216, 1217 (8th Cir. 2006). 	Because the instant Motions to
Amend/Correct were filed in November 2025, after judgment was entered on their initial
2255 motions, Rules 59 and 60 govern the request to amend the original motions. 	Id.
Under Rule 59, a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days
after the entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Under Rule 60, a motion for relief
CASE 0:19-cr-00185-SRN-KMM Doc. 894 Filed 04/09/26 Page 6 of 11

7
from judgment must be filed “within a reasonable time,” and in the case of relief based on
mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud, “no more than a year after the entry of the
judgment or order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
As to Mr. Graham’s initial 2255 Motion, this Court entered judgment on July 13,
2022 [Doc. No. 678], and the Eighth Circuit entered judgment on his appeal on September
28, 2022 [Doc. No. 690]. The instant Motion to Amend/Correct, filed by Mr. Graham in
November 2025, fails to satisfy the 28-day deadline under Rule 59, nor was it filed “within
a reasonable time” under Rule 60. 	Accordingly, the Court denies his Motion to
Amend/Correct.
As to Mr. Jackson, the Court entered judgment on his initial 2255 Motion on
October 25, 2023 [Doc. No. 787], and the Eighth Circuit entered judgment on his appeal
on January 12, 2024 [Doc. No. 807]. 	As with Mr. Graham, too much time has elapsed
under Rules 59 and 60 for Mr. Jackson to amend or correct his initial 2255 Motion. His
Motion to Amend/Correct is therefore denied.1
1 	Moreover, in the prior Orders on Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham’s initial 2255
Motions, the Court addressed the double jeopardy arguments for which Mr. Jackson and
Mr. Graham currently seek leave to amend. 	(See Doc. Nos. 677 & 785.) 	In their initial
2255 Motions, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham relied on United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S.
845 (2022), and they now invoke an earlier case, United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445
(2019). 	Not only was Davis in effect at the time they filed their initial 2255 Motions, it
provides no relief. In Davis, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause’s definition
of a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague. 588
U.S. at 470. 	Subsequently, in Taylor, the defendant sought to apply Davis retroactively
and vacate his § 924(c) conviction and sentence. 	596 U.S. at 849. 	In opposition, the
government argued that even if the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague, the crime
of attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence under the elements clause
of § 924(c)(3)(A). Id. The Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument and held
CASE 0:19-cr-00185-SRN-KMM Doc. 894 Filed 04/09/26 Page 7 of 11

8
D. Amended 2255 Motions [Doc. No. 885 & 882]
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham have also filed Amended 2255 Motions, in which they
again challenge this Court’s jurisdiction based on a purportedly faulty indictment. 	As
noted, the Court has addressed this substantive argument in its prior rulings. 	(See Doc.
Nos. 677, 785, 786, 819, 820.) As noted, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham have not obtained
authorization from the Eighth Circuit to file successive 2255 motions. Accordingly, their
Amended 2255 Motions are unauthorized and they are denied.
E. Evidentiary Hearings [Doc. Nos. 870, 876, 883, and 886]
Finally, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham request an evidentiary hearing on their
Amended 2255 Motions and Motions to Amend/Correct. 	In light of the foregoing
that attempted Hobbs Act robbery failed to qualify as a crime of violence under the
elements clause. Id. at 858–60.
Davis is inapplicable to Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham because their sentences were
not based on the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B), but on the elements clause of §
924(c)(3)(A). Furthermore, as the Court has previously explained, Taylor is inapplicable
to their sentences because the defendant in Taylor was convicted of attempted Hobbs Act
robbery versus the completed crime, for which Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham were
convicted. (See Oct. 25, 2023 Order [Doc. No. 785] at 3–4.) This distinction was important
to Taylor’s holding, as the attempted crime requires only a “substantial step” toward
robbery, but does not always involve the actual, attempted, or threatened use of force. 596
U.S. at 851 (“Whatever one might say about completed Hobbs Act robbery, attempted
Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the elements clause.”). 	Before Taylor, the Eighth
Circuit held that completed Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the
elements clause of § 924(c)(2), Diaz v. United States, 863 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2017),
and following Taylor, it continues to hold that completed Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of
violence. United States v. Moore, No. 22-1899, 2022 WL 4361998, at *1 (8th Cir. Sept.
21, 2022) (“[T]he plea agreement established that Moore pleaded guilty to completed
Hobbs Act robbery, which is a crime of violence.”); see also Green v. Garland, 79 F.4th
920, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2023) (distinguishing facts of Taylor and finding conviction for
completed Hobbs Act robbery subjected noncitizen to removal as an aggravated felony
under immigration law because it constitutes a “crime of violence.”).
CASE 0:19-cr-00185-SRN-KMM Doc. 894 Filed 04/09/26 Page 8 of 11

9
discussion, there is no basis for an evidentiary hearing. 	See Delgado v. United States, 162
F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that a § 2255 motion may be dismissed without a
hearing if: 	(1) the defendant’s allegations, if accepted as true, would not entitle him 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.).
Accordingly, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham’s Motions for an Evidentiary Hearing are
denied.
F. Certificate of Appealability
In order to appeal an adverse decision on a § 2255 motion, a movant must first obtain
a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability
cannot be granted unless the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This Court has considered whether the
issuance of a certificate is appropriate here and finds that the basis for dismissal is not
reasonably debatable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85
(2000). 	Accordingly, because Mr. Jackson and Mr. Graham have failed to make a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court declines to issue them
certificates of appealability.
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
1. 	The “PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FROM JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR
PROCESS per Fed. R. Cr. P. 60(b)(4)” [Doc. No. 839] filed by Ronald
Jermaine Jackson is DENIED.
CASE 0:19-cr-00185-SRN-KMM Doc. 894 Filed 04/09/26 Page 9 of 11

10
2. 	The “PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
PER RULE 60(b)(b)” filed by Ronald Jermaine Jackson [Doc. No. 854] is
DENIED.
3. 	The “PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT PER RULE 60(b)(b)” [Doc. No. 856] filed by Ronald
Jermaine Jackson is DENIED.
4. 	The “PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT PER RULE 60(b)(b)” [Doc. No. 857] filed by Ronald
Jermaine Jackson is DENIED.
5. 	The “PRO SE MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255” [Doc. No. 872]
by Ronald Jermaine Jackson is DENIED.
6. 	The “PRO SE MOTION to Amend MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C.
2255” [Doc. No. 875] filed by Ronald Jermaine Jackson is DENIED.
7. 	The “PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING” [Doc. No. 876] filed by Ronald Jermaine Jackson is DENIED
AS MOOT.
8. 	The “PRO SE AMENDED MOTION under 28 U.S.C. 255 to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence” [Doc. No. 885] filed by Ronald Jermaine
Jackson is DENIED.
9. 	The “PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING PER 28 U.S.C. 2255” [Doc. No. 886] filed by Ronald Jermaine
Jackson is DENIED AS MOOT.
10. The “PRO SE MOTION EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT, ORDER OR PROCESS” [Doc. No. 841] filed by William
Charles Graham is DENIED.
11. The “PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT PER RULE 60(b)(b)” [Doc. No. 853] filed by William
Charles Graham is DENIED.
12. The “PRO SE MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255” [Doc. No. 866]
filed by William Charles Graham is DENIED.
CASE 0:19-cr-00185-SRN-KMM Doc. 894 Filed 04/09/26 Page 10 of 11

11
13. The “PRO SE MOTION to Amend MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C.
2255” [Doc. No. 869] filed by William Charles Graham is DENIED.
14. The “PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING” [Doc. No. 870] filed by William Charles Graham is DENIED
AS MOOT.
15. The “PRO SE AMENDED MOTION under 28 U.S.C. 255 to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence” [Doc. No. 882] filed by William Charles
Graham is DENIED.
16. The “PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING PER 28 U.S.C. 2255” [Doc. No. 883] filed by William Charles
Graham is DENIED AS MOOT.
17. Certificates of Appealability are DENIED as to Mr. Jackson and Mr.
Graham.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 9, 2026
s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:19-cr-00185-SRN-KMM Doc. 894 Filed 04/09/26 Page 11 of 11