USA v. Custis et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELDRICK L. BRYANT (02),
Defendant.
Case No. 22-20057-02-DDC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant Deldrick L. Bryant has filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 171 at 2.
The parties have agreed that Mr. Bryant’s motion should proceed as an ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel § 2255. “To establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, one must show both
deficient performance and resultant prejudice to the defendant.” United States v. Babcock, 40
F.4th 1172, 1176 (10th Cir. 2022) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).
The court considers each prong, in turn, below.
To prevail on Strickland’s first prong—constitutionally deficient performance—
defendant “must show ‘that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness[.]’” United States v. Moya, 676 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). The court recognizes that, usually, review of this prong is highly
deferential. Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159, 1168 (10th Cir. 2011). But, in this case, the
government has conceded that Mr. Bryant’s counsel rendered inadequate assistance. Doc. 172 at
3. Such a concession isn’t unheard of. See United States v. McGaughy, 670 F.3d 1149, 1153
Case 2:22-cr-20057-DDC Document 178 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 2

2
(10th Cir. 2012). And so, the court adopts the parties’ position and finds that defense counsel’s
failure to object to an inapplicable enhancement1 amounted to deficient performance.
“As for Strickland’s prejudice prong, [Mr. Bryant] must establish that but for counsel’s
errors, there is a reasonable probability ‘the result of the proceeding would have been different.’”
Hooks v. Workman, 606 F.3d 715, 724 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).
The government doesn’t dispute this prong either. Doc. 172 at 4. Nor could it. The erroneous
enhancement added two levels to Mr. Bryant’s offense level. Mr. Bryant’s Guideline range was
46 to 57 months, when it should have been 37 to 46 months. U.S.S.G. ch. 5 pt. A (sentencing
table). The court sentenced Mr. Bryant to 46 months—the lowest available under the
Guidelines. Doc. 143 at 2 (Judgment). Had the PSR calculated Mr. Bryant’s Guideline range
properly, the court likely would’ve sentenced him to 37 months. That is why a reasonable
probability exists that, had counsel not missed the improper enhancement, Mr. Bryant would
have received a lower sentence.
The court thus grants Mr. Bryant’s § 2255 amended motion (Doc. 171).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT Mr. Bryant’s Amended
Motion to Vacate Sentence under § 2255 (Doc. 171) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT Mr. Bryant’s previous
sentence is vacated. The court will impose a new sentence and subsequently enter a judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of November, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree______
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
1 	The court assumes the reader’s familiarity with its prior Order in this case, Doc. 175, which
explains the error in more detail.
Case 2:22-cr-20057-DDC Document 178 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 2