govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_23-cr-00279-0

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
United States of America, 
 
   P l a i n t i f f ,    MEMORANDUM OPINION 
  v .      AND ORDER 
Criminal No. 23-279 ADM/DLM 
Nakia Marquire Martin,    Civil No. 25-4819 ADM 
                                     
   Defendant. 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
Katharine T. Buzicky, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, 
Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff. 
 
Nakia Marquire Martin, pro se. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
I.  INTRODUCTION 
 This matter is before the undersigned Un ited States District Judge for a ruling on 
Defendant Nakia Marquire Martin’s (“Martin”) Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 
Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Docket No. 88].
1  For the reasons set forth below, the 
Motion is denied. 
II. BACKGROUND 
 On January 4, 2024, Martin entered a plea of  guilty to being a felon in possession of 
ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8).  See Min. Entry [Docket No. 
33]; Plea Agreement [Docket No. 35].  In the Plea Agreement, Martin waived most of his rights 
to appeal his sentence.  Plea Agreement at 7-8.  He also “knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] all 
rights to contest [his] conviction or sentence in any collateral postconviction proceeding, 
including one pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, except for a claim of 
 
1 All citations are to the criminal case docket.   
CASE 0:23-cr-00279-ADM-DLM     Doc. 97     Filed 04/09/26     Page 1 of 5
 2 
ineffective assistance of counsel or an applicable change in the law.”  Id. at 8.  At the change of 
plea hearing, the Court reviewed the waiver provisions in the Plea Agreement with Martin.  Id. at 
19-20.  Martin affirmed that he understood the provisions and that his waiver was knowing, 
intelligent, and voluntary.  Id.   
 On June 18, 2024, the Court sentenced Martin to a term of 77 months.  See Min. Entry 
[Docket No. 58]; Sentencing J. [Docket No. 59] at 2.  Martin appealed his sentence, arguing that 
the Court erred in applying the obstruction-of-justice adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.  See 
United States v. Martin, App. No. 24-2412, Entry ID 5444198.  The Government moved to 
dismiss Martin’s appeal based on the appellate waiver in the Plea Agreement.  Id. at Entry ID 
5415247.  The Eighth Circuit granted the Government’s motion and dismissed the appeal on 
November 18, 2024.  Id. at Entry ID 5457710.  Martin did not seek certiorari or otherwise 
challenge the dismissal of his appeal.   
 On December 30, 2025, Martin timely filed th is § 2255 Motion to vacate his sentence.  
He argues that his sentence must be vacated pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in New 
York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), which held that a New York 
law requiring “proper cause” to carry a firearm violated the Second Amendment.  Martin argues 
that under Bruen, his conviction under § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment.   
III.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Legal Standard  
 Persons in federal custody are provided a li mited opportunity to collaterally attack the 
constitutionality, jurisdictional basis, or legality of their sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.  See 
United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979).  “Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is 
CASE 0:23-cr-00279-ADM-DLM     Doc. 97     Filed 04/09/26     Page 2 of 5
 3 
reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could 
not have been raised on direct appeal, and if uncorrected, would result in a complete miscarriage 
of justice.”  Walking Eagle v. United States, 742 F.3d 1079, 1081-82 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting 
United States v. Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 1996)).   
“Habeas review is an extraordinary remedy and will not be allowed to do service for an 
appeal.”  Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998) (quotation omitted).  If a defendant 
procedurally defaults on a claim by failing to raise it on direct review, “the claim may be raised 
in habeas only if the defendant can first demonstrate either ‘cause’ and ‘actual prejudice,’ or that 
he is ‘actually innocent.’”  Id. at 622 (internal citations omitted). 
B.  Analysis 
 Martin’s § 2255 Motion fails fo r at least three reasons.  First, Martin has procedurally 
defaulted on his claim under Bruen because he failed to raise the claim in his appeal.  Martin has 
not argued, much less established, that the default should be excused based on cause and actual 
prejudice, or that he is actually innocent of the offense.  He therefore cannot raise the Bruen 
claim in a § 2255 motion.  Bousley, 523 U.S. at 622. 
 Second, Martin’s § 2255 Motion is covered by th e collateral-attack waiver in his Plea 
Agreement.  A defendant’s waiver of his right to seek collateral relief under § 2255 “is 
enforceable when the claim raised falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly 
and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and waiver, and enforcement of the waiver 
would not result in a miscarriage of justice.”  Ackerland v. United States, 633 F.3d 698, 701 (8th 
Cir. 2011).  Here, Martin “knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] all rights to contest [his] 
conviction or sentence in any collateral postconviction proceeding, including one pursuant to 
CASE 0:23-cr-00279-ADM-DLM     Doc. 97     Filed 04/09/26     Page 3 of 5
 4 
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, except for a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel or an applicable change in the law.”  Plea Agreement at 8.  Martin is not claiming 
ineffective assistance of counsel, and there has been no applicable change in the law because 
Bruen was decided two years before Martin was sentenced.  As such, the collateral-attack waiver 
applies.  
 Finally, the § 2255 Motion fails on the merits.  Martin’s argument that Bruen renders 
§ 922(g)(1) unconstitutional is contradicted by binding Eighth Circuit precedent in United States 
v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2708 (2025).  Jackson holds 
that “Congress acted within the historical tradition when it enacted § 922(g)(1) and the 
prohibition on possession of firearms by felons,” and that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the 
Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence, including Bruen and United States v. 
Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024).  Id. at 1129.  Martin’s § 2255 Motion is therefore denied. 
IV.  EVIDENTIARY HEARING 
 An evidentiary hearing is not warranted, as  the § 2255 Motion and the files and record in 
this case conclusively show that Martin is not entitled to § 2255 relief.  28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Noe 
v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 792 (8th Cir. 2010).   
V.  CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 
 The Court may grant a certif icate of appealability only where a defendant has made a 
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.  28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Tiedeman v. 
Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 523 (8th Cir. 1997).  To make such a showing, “[t]he petitioner must 
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 
claims debatable or wrong.”  Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).  The Court finds it 
CASE 0:23-cr-00279-ADM-DLM     Doc. 97     Filed 04/09/26     Page 4 of 5
 5 
unlikely that another court would decide the issues raised by this § 2255 Motion differently, or 
that any of the issues raised by Martin’s § 2255 Motion would be debatable among reasonable 
jurists. Thus, the Court declines to grant a certificate of appealability. 
VI.  CONCLUSION 
 Based upon the foregoing, and all the file s, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Nakia Marquire Martin’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 
Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Docket No. 88] is DENIED. 
 
 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 
 
 
       BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
        s/Ann D. Montgomery                               
Dated: April 9, 2026     ANN D. MONTGOMERY 
       U . S .  D I S T R I C T  C O U R T  
CASE 0:23-cr-00279-ADM-DLM     Doc. 97     Filed 04/09/26     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight