USA v. Solomon

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JARON SOLOMON,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.: 1:25-cv-00141
1:23-cr-00160
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER
(Resolves Docs. 35, 37, 38)
This matter is before the Court upon Jaron Solomon’s (“Solomon”) Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct a Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 35). The United States of America
(the “Government”) filed the Government’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. Doc. 38. The matter is now fully briefed and ready for
disposition. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is DENIED.
I. 	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Solomon with felon in possession of
a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). Doc. 1. Solomon
pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. Doc. 14. On October 10, 2023, the Court sentenced
Solomon to 46 months’ imprisonment. Doc. 24. Solomon filed the Notice of Appeal (Doc. 26), and
the Sixth Circuit affirmed. See United States v. Solomon, No. 23-3854, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS
19822 (6th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024). He then filed the Motion for Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) (Compassionate Release) (Doc. 33), which the Court denied. He now proceeds
Case: 1:23-cr-00160-JRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 11/25/25 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
with the Motion, wherein he argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel as a last
effort toward a sentence reduction.
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). Solomon’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel fall
in the first category because he alleges that his constitutional right to the effective assistance of
counsel was violated. Pough v. United States, 442 F.3d 959, 964 (6th Cir. 2006).
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). Further, counsel’s strategic choices are granted a high level of
deference under the presumption that the challenged action might be considered sound trial
strategy. Tremble v. Burt, 497 Fed. Appx. 536, 574 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation
Case: 1:23-cr-00160-JRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 11/25/25 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
marks omitted). 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).
III. 	ANALYSIS
a. 	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Camera Footage
Solomon first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective when they did not present
evidence of camera footage that would have proved Solomon was not involved in a drug
transaction during the time of the offense. Doc. 35-1 at p. 1.
“Trial management is the lawyer’s province: Counsel provides his or her assistance by
making decisions such as what arguments to pursue, what evidentiary objections to raise, and what
agreements to conclude regarding the admission of evidence.” McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414,
422 (2018) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Solomon was charged with, and pled
guilty to, illegally possessing a firearm, rather than engaging in drug trafficking as this argument
suggests. While he may not have agreed with his counsel’s decision to not subpoena the camera
footage, he has not provided any information or argument as to how that performance was deficient
or prejudicial. See Bullard at 661. Accordingly, this ground for relief is denied.
b. 	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Objection to Presentence Report
Solomon next claims that trial counsel was ineffective when they did not object to a prior
drug conviction being part of his criminal history calculation that was used for determination of
the sentencing guideline. Doc. 35-1 at p. 1.
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,
Case: 1:23-cr-00160-JRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 11/25/25 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
90 F.3d 177, 180 (6th Cir. 1996). The issue of whether Solomon’s misdemeanor conviction for
marijuana possession was properly counted was addressed on direct appeal, and the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the Court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Solomon, No.
23-3854, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19822, at *7–8 (6th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024). Therefore, the matter
cannot be relitigated. See Oliver at 180. Accordingly, Solomon has not established any resulting
prejudice due to counsel’s alleged errors. See Bullard, 937 F.3d at 661. This ground for relief is
denied.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Solomon’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence
(Doc. 35) is DENIED.1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that Solomon 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.
November 25, 2025 	/s/ John R. Adams
DATE 	JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 	Solomon includes a request for appointed counsel for this matter. Doc. 37. The Court may appoint counsel
for a financially eligible individual in a § 2255 proceeding when the interests of justice require it. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court finds the issues herein are neither complex nor meritorious, therefore there is
no basis for the appointment of counsel. The Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 37) is accordingly DENIED.
Case: 1:23-cr-00160-JRA Doc #: 42 Filed: 11/25/25 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>