govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_24-cr-00147-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
    United States of America, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
Johnathan Eric Thompson, 
 
Defendant. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
File No. 24-cr-147(1) (ECT/LIB) 
 
 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
 
Katharine T. Buzicky, United States Attorney’s Office, St. Paul, MN, for Plaintiff United 
States of America.  
 
Johnathan Eric Thompson, pro se.  
 
 
Defendant Johnathan Eric Thompson has filed a motion challenging his sentence 
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.  It will be denied because it is procedurally barred.  Additionally, 
his claims are not cognizable under the statute. 
 On May 30, 2024, Mr. Thompson was indicted on one count of conspiracy to 
distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 
and 846.  ECF No. 1 at 1–2.  On September 5, 2024, he pleaded guilty to that offense.  ECF 
Nos. 49–50.  By signing the plea agreement,  Mr. Thompson waived his right to appeal 
non-jurisdictional issues and to collaterally attack his sentence, other than a § 2255 claim 
based on ineffective assistance of counsel.  ECF No. 50 ¶ 16.  Mr. Thompson was sentenced 
on February 19, 2025.  ECF No. 89.  His total offense level was determined to be 37, and 
his criminal history category was VI, so his Sentencing Guidelines range was 360 months 
CASE 0:24-cr-00147-ECT-LIB     Doc. 119     Filed 06/08/26     Page 1 of 5
2 
 
to life.  ECF No. 91 at 1; see U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table).  He was sentenced 
to 210 months’ imprisonment.  ECF No. 90 at 1.  Mr. Thompson did not appeal.  See Dkt.   
 On February 25, 2026, Mr. Thompson filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or 
correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.  ECF No. 112.  Mr. Thompson argues that the 
Guidelines were calculated incorrectly in two ways.  First, his offense level was increased 
by two levels under the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), which applies when “the defendant was an 
organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in the offense.  Mr. Thompson believes no 
evidence shows he played this aggravated role.  ECF No. 112 at 4.  He raised this objection 
before sentencing.  ECF No. 69 at 2.  The Amended Presentence Report did not incorporate 
this objection, ECF No. 72 at 26– 27, and that objection was overruled at the sentencing 
hearing, ECF No. 91 at 1 (noting that the Amended Presentence Report was adopted 
without change).  Second, Mr. Thompson’s offense level was increased by two levels for 
possession of a dangerous weapon.  U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).  He argues that the 
enhancement should not have applied, because the firearm was recovered “in a gun case 
with empty clip inside on one shelf” of the closet, while the narcotics were “on another 
shelf.”  ECF No. 112 at 5.  He believes that he could not have possessed the firearm because 
he was not near the gun when he was arrested, and that the firearm could not be considered 
dangerous because it was safely stored and empty of ammunition.  Id.   Mr. Thompson did 
not make this objection at sentencing.   
 Mr. Thompson’s motion will be denied because it is twice procedurally barred.  In 
his plea agreement, Mr. Thompson waived his right to bring a § 2255 motion on any 
grounds other than ineffective assistance of counsel or “a collateral challenge under 28 
CASE 0:24-cr-00147-ECT-LIB     Doc. 119     Filed 06/08/26     Page 2 of 5
3 
 
U.S.C. § 2255 based on new legal principles enunciated in Supreme Court case law decided 
after the date of this Plea Agreement that are both substantive and have retroactive effect.”  
ECF No. 50 ¶ 16.   
Here, Mr. Thompson makes no argument that his counsel’s performance was 
ineffective or that new legal principles apply to his case.  See ECF No. 112 at 4–5.  Instead, 
he argues that his Guidelines calculation was incorrect.  Id.  He has waived that argument.  
See Ackerland v. United States, 633 F.3d 698, 701 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Andis, 
333 F.3d 886, 890– 92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (upholding waivers of appellate rights 
when defendants make them knowingly and voluntarily, and there is no miscarriage of 
justice).  Because Mr. Thompson presents no reason to think his plea was unknowing or 
involuntary, or that the “extremely narrow” miscarriage of justice exception applies, Andis, 
333 F.3d at 892, his waiver will be enforced.   
Additionally, Mr. Thompson’s claim is barred because he failed to raise these issues 
on appeal (and for the possession-of-a-dangerous-weapon objection, because he also did 
not make it during sentencing).  “Section 2255 relief is not available to correct errors which 
could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, 
or a showing that the alleged errors were fundamental defects resulting in a complete 
miscarriage of justice.”  Ramey v. United States, 8 F.3d 1313, 1314 (8th Cir. 1993) (per 
curiam) (citation omitted).   
Even if the motion overcame these procedural barriers, it would be denied on the 
merits.  Federal prisoners may collaterally attack their convictions or sentences under 
§ 2255 
CASE 0:24-cr-00147-ECT-LIB     Doc. 119     Filed 06/08/26     Page 3 of 5
4 
 
upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of 
the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court 
was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the 
sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or 
is otherwise subject to collateral attack.  
 
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); see Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 426–27 (1962).  A challenge 
to Sentencing Guidelines calculations is ordinarily not grounds to bring a § 2255 motion, 
subject to three exceptions.  United States v. Perales, 212 F.3d 1110, 1111 (8th Cir. 2000); 
see Auman v. United States, 67 F.3d 157, 161 (8th Cir. 1995).  Those exceptions are (1) an 
ineffective-assistance claim premised on the attorney’s failure to argue for credit for time 
served under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3; (2) a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory 
maximum; and (3)  a claim  that the sentence amounted to a “miscarriage of justice.”  
Perales, 212 F.3d at 1111.  None applies here.  Mr. Thompson’s arguments are not about 
credit for time served, and his sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, which is 
life in prison.  21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).  Mr. Thompson has not shown a miscarriage of 
justice.  His 210-month sentence was below the low end of the Guidelines range he believes 
should have been applied.  See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, pt. A.  For an offense level of 33 and a 
criminal history category of VI, the Guidelines recommend a sentence of 235 to 293 
months.  Id.  The Eighth Circuit has found no miscarriage of justice where the sentence fell 
within the statutory maximum and within the Guidelines range that resulted when the 
challenged enhancement was not applied.  Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 705 
(8th Cir. 2011) (en banc).  Under that precedent, Mr. Thompson has not shown a 
miscarriage of justice that would make his Guidelines challenge cognizable on a §  2255 
motion.  See Auman, 67 F.3d at 161. 
CASE 0:24-cr-00147-ECT-LIB     Doc. 119     Filed 06/08/26     Page 4 of 5
5 
 
 Finally, “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the 
prisoner is entitled to no relief,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b), so Mr. Thompson is not entitled to 
an evidentiary hearing.  Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 792 (8th Cir. 2010).  
Mr. Thompson has not made “a substantial showing . . . that the issues are debatable among 
reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further 
proceedings.”  Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882–83 (8th Cir. 1994).  Therefore, no 
certificate of appealability shall issue.  See id.  
ORDER 
 Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings 
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 
 1.   Defendant Johnathan Eric Thompson’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to 
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence [ECF No. 112] is DENIED. 
 2.  No certificate of appealability shall issue. 
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 
 
Dated:  June 8, 2026     s/ Eric C. Tostrud     
       Eric C. Tostrud 
       United States District Court 
CASE 0:24-cr-00147-ECT-LIB     Doc. 119     Filed 06/08/26     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight