Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Devers

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

September 9, 2014



LAURIE SMITH CAMP, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Jason Debarge Devers's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody ("§ 2255 motion") (Filing No. 106). Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts requires initial review of a § 2255 motion, and describes the initial review process:

The judge who receives the motion must promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party. If the motion is not dismissed, the judge must order the United States attorney to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may order.


Devers was found guilty of a one-count Indictment charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

At the Initial Appearance and Arraignment held on August 24, 2012, Devers requested counsel and Deputy Federal Public Defender Shannon O'Connor was appointed. On September 12, 2012, a hearing was held before Magistrate Judge Gossett on the Defendant's Motion for Appointment of New Counsel (Filing No. 19). Judge Gossett questioned the Defendant about his concerns regarding O'Connor's representation. Judge Gossett advised Devers that although O'Connor was an outstanding lawyer, Judge Gossett would grant the motion and new counsel would be appointed.

On September 12, 2012, the court appointed Michael J. Tasset to represent Devers, and on October 19, 2012, Tasset filed a Motion to Withdraw (Filing No. 34) stating "... that Devers desires to represent himself in this matter." On October 25, 2012, Judge Gossett heard the Motion to Withdraw. Judge Gossett confirmed that Devers wished to represent himself and Judge Gossett advised Devers that he had the right to do so. Judge Gossett also advised Devers that Tasset, like O'Connor, was an outstanding lawyer. Judge Gossett questioned Devers at length about his reasons for wanting to represent himself, cautioning Devers against self-representation and strongly suggesting that he not proceed without counsel. Judge Gossett ultimately granted the Motion to Withdraw, but asked if Devers would agree to have Tasset serve as stand-by counsel during trial. Devers stated he did not want Tasset to be stand-by counsel and wished to proceed pro se. Judge Gossett found that Devers freely, knowingly, voluntarily and unequivocally understood the consequences of representing himself. Devers asked that his pending motion to suppress be withdrawn and that his case be set for trial.

The jury trial began on November 27, 2012, and the matter was submitted to the jury on November 28, 2012. A guilty verdict was received on November 28, 2012, and the sentencing hearing was scheduled for February 25, 2013.

On December 7, 2012, Devers filed a motion asking the court to appoint "Appeal Counsel for my appeal." He further stated, "I would also like my trial transcripts." (Filing No. 69). The motion was granted as to the appointment of counsel and was otherwise denied. On January 11, 2013, Shannon O'Connor entered his appearance at Filing No. 74. In that filing, Mr. O'Connor stated that, "Counsel spoke with Mr. Devers on January 10, 2013. Mr. Devers informed counsel that he did not request appointment of counsel before sentencing. After conversing with the Defendant, he informed counsel that he desired a stand-by counsel for sentencing and a regular appointment on appeal." Id. at 1. On the same day, the Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Filing No. 75) and that motion was denied without prejudice.

The Presentence Investigation Report (Filing No. 78) ("PSR") was sent to the parties and the Court on January 23, 2013. It calculated a Total Offense Level of 20 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), because Devers committed the instant offense after sustaining one felony conviction for a crime of violence. Devers's Criminal History was VI, based on 17 criminal history points. Devers's criminal history points actually totaled 25, but points for certain convictions were not counted pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c)(1) and (c)(2). See PSR ¶¶ 53, 54.

Devers did not file any objections to the PSR pursuant to the Order on Sentencing Schedule (Filing No. 63). At the sentencing hearing, O'Connor appeared with Devers, but stated that he would be representing Devers only in appeal proceedings, and not at the sentencing or any proceedings prior to the appeal. During the sentencing hearing, Devers was given an opportunity to address the Court and he made no oral objections to the PSR. Devers was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment, the lowest end of the guideline range, and 3 years of supervised release.

Devers filed an appeal and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's Judgment. On July 30, 2014, Devers's timely § 2255 motion was filed. In his motion, Devers argues two grounds for relief: (Ground One) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Miscalculations of Criminal History Points; and (Ground Two) Ineffective assistance of Counsel for failure to Negotiate a Plea.


In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a Defendant must satisfy both prongs of the test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The performance prong requires a showing that counsel performed outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and made errors so serious that counsel failed to function as the kind of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 687-89. The prejudice ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.