USA v. Custis et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JADEN C. CHANEY (03),
Defendant.
Case No. 22-20057-03-DDC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant Jaden C. Chaney has filed an unopposed motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Doc. 188. He asks the court to vacate his sentence because his trial counsel rendered
constitutionally deficient performance. Specifically, Mr. Chaney asserts that “counsel failed to
object to an improper sentencing guideline enhancement.” Id. at 1. “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. Chaney’s counsel rendered inadequate assistance. Doc. 188
Case 2:22-cr-20057-DDC Document 191 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 3

2
at 1 (identifying motion as unopposed). Such a concession isn’t unheard of. See United States v.
McGaughy, 670 F.3d 1149, 1153 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Here, the government essentially conceded
ineffective assistance of counsel[.]”). 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. Chaney] 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 erroneous enhancement added two levels to Mr. Chaney’s offense level. Mr. Chaney’s
Guideline range was 41 to 51 months, when a correct calculation would have produced 33 to 41
months. U.S.S.G. ch. 5 pt. A (sentencing table). The court sentenced Mr. Chaney to 41
months—the lowest rung of a Guidelines sentence. Doc. 117 at 2 (Judgment). Had the PSR
calculated Mr. Chaney’s Guideline range properly, the court likely would’ve sentenced him to 33
months. So, a reasonable probability exists that, had counsel not missed the improper
enhancement, Mr. Chaney would have received a lower sentence.
The court thus grants Mr. Chaney’s § 2255 motion and vacates his sentence. This Order
is stayed until the court can conduct a new sentencing hearing and enter an amended judgment
on the docket.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT Mr. Chaney’s unopposed
Motion to Vacate Sentence under § 2255 (Doc. 188) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 	The court assumes the reader’s familiarity with its prior Order in this case, Doc. 175. That Order
explains the same error made for co-defendant Deldrick L. Bryant.
Case 2:22-cr-20057-DDC Document 191 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Dated this 20th day of January, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree______
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 2:22-cr-20057-DDC Document 191 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 3