USA v. Blackmon

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:23-cr-156-MOC-SCR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, ) )
)
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF
VS.
)
DECISION AND ORDER
)
)
JEANNETTA BLACKMON,
)
)
Defendant. )
)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 42] and Defendant's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 39].
I. BACKGROUND
Between April 2020 and November 2021, Defendant Jeannetta Blackmon ("Defendant") fraudulently obtained Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") and Economic Injury Disaster Loan ("EIDL") funds on behalf of her three businesses, J Renee Enterprises, LLC; Jeannetta Renee Girls Talk ("JR Girls Talk"), and Jrenee Investments ("JR Investments"); and on behalf of her customers' businesses. [Doc. 6: Factual Basis].
Defendant was charged in a Bill of Information with one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and one count of engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. [Doc. 1: Bill of Information]. The Bill contained a notice of forfeiture of proceeds of crime and property involved in money laundering. [Id. at 7]. It specified that a money judgment of $1,675,328.60, the amount constituting the proceeds that went to
1
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO
Case 3:23-cr-00156-MOC-SCR
Document 47 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Defendant and her customers, would be subject to forfeiture. [Id.]. This amount included inter alia
the real property at 10108 Barrands Lane, Charlotte, North Carolina (the “Real Property”), which
Defendant purchased with a loan and $120,707.94 in funds from accounts funded primarily if not
entirely by fraud proceeds. [Doc. 24-1 at ¶ 4: Elliott Aff.; Doc. 24-2].
On July 25, 2023, Defendant pleaded guilty to both counts. [Doc. 8: Acceptance and Entry
of Guilty Plea; Doc. 2: Plea Agreement]. Pursuant to terms of the Plea Agreement, Defendant
consented to the money judgment and agreed to cooperate with financial disclosures and forfeiture,
including the satisfaction of the forfeiture money judgment by forfeiture of substitute property.
[Doc. 2 at ¶ 8]. Despite the Government’s multiple requests over many months, however,
Defendant did not consent to forfeiture or provide a financial statement to the U.S. Attorney’s
Office. [Doc. 24 at 2–3]. On February 28, 2025, the Government, therefore, moved the Court to
determine forfeiture at or prior to sentencing. [Id. at 3].
At sentencing, the Court entered a Consent Order and Judgment of Forfeiture Pending Rule
32.2(c)(2) in the amount of $619,000, finding “such amount constituting the proceeds traceable to
the offense to which Defendant pled guilty.” [Doc. 25]. The Court varied downward and sentenced
the Defendant to term of imprisonment of 30 months and ordered restitution in the amount of
$1,549,737.00. [Doc. 27 at 2, 5: Judgment; Doc. 28 at 3: Statement of Reasons].
Two weeks later, the Court granted the Government’s motion to determine forfeiture and
entered a money judgment and preliminary order of forfeiture. [Doc. 29; see Doc. 24]. The Court
held inter alia that, pending Fed. R. Civ. P. 32.2(c)(2),1 property derived from proceeds traceable
to Defendant’s fraud crime, including the Real Property, was subject to forfeiture. [Id. at 6]. The
1 Under this provision, “the court must enter a final order of forfeiture by amending the preliminary
order as necessary to account for any third-party rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(c)(2).
Case 3:23-cr-00156-MOC-SCR Document 47 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Court also concluded that the Real Property was subject to forfeiture as property involved in a §
1957 transaction. [Id.]. The Court, therefore, ordered the forfeiture money judgment in the amount
of $619,000 and the Real Property forfeited pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) and authorized
the Government to take and maintain custody of this property. [Id. at 7]. After the Government
provided proper notice of this forfeiture and its intent to dispose of the property, consent orders
were entered resolving third parties’ interests in the Real Property. [Docs. 33, 36]. Thereafter, on
August 8, 2025, the Court granted the Government’s motion for Final Order of Forfeiture, giving
the Government clear title to the Real Property. [Docs. 37, 38]. Defendant did not file a direct
appeal.
On September 18, 2025, Defendant filed the pending § 2255 motion to vacate. [Doc. 42].
Defendant wants the forfeiture judgment vacated and her residence, presumably the Real Property,
returned to her. [Id.]. As grounds for this relief, Defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel
relative to various forfeiture-related issues. She claims her attorney induced her to sign a
“repayment agreement,” which operated as a forfeiture agreement and included Defendant’s home;
failed to ensure that the record reflected the exclusion of Defendant’s residence from forfeiture in
accordance with this Court’s intent at sentencing; and failed to fulfill her duties relative to
forfeiture proceedings. [Id.]. Defendant has also moved for appointment of counsel. [Doc. 39].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A federal prisoner claiming that his “sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution
or the 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, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct
the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
Case 3:23-cr-00156-MOC-SCR Document 47 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings provides that courts are to
promptly examine motions to vacate, along with “any attached exhibits and the record of prior
proceedings . . .” in order to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief on the claims
set forth therein. After examining the record in this matter, the Court finds that the motion to vacate
can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing based on the record and governing case law. See
Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970).
III. DISCUSSION
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions,
the accused has the right to the assistance of counsel for his defense. See U.S. Const. Amend. VI.
To show ineffective assistance of counsel, Defendant must first establish deficient performance by
counsel and, second, that the deficient performance prejudiced him. See Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984).
Assuming in arguendo that Defendant’s counsel was ineffective relative to the forfeiture
proceedings here, however, § 2255 “may not be used for the sole purpose of challenging fines or
restitution orders.” United States v. Hudgins, 201 Fed. App’x 142, 143 (4th Cir. 2006); Mamone
v. United States, 559 F.3d 1209, 1211 (11th Cir. 2009) (a movant cannot utilize § 2255 to challenge
a restitution order, even if cognizable claims seeking release from custody are also raised);
Kaminski v. United States, 339 F.3d 84, 87 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[T]he language of § 2255 is best read
as requiring a challenge to custody…. [C]ollateral challenges have historically been permitted
through habeas only when an interest as compelling as freedom from custody is at stake.”); United
States v. Fabian, C/A No. CCB-09-2810, Cr. No. CCB-07-0355, 2011 WL 2791085, at *30 (D.
Md. July 14, 2011) (collecting cases) (a noncustodial component of a sentence, such as restitution
or forfeiture order, cannot be attacked in a § 2255 petition); but cf. United States v. Luessenhop,
Case 3:23-cr-00156-MOC-SCR Document 47 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 7

5
143 Fed. App’x 528, 531 (4th Cir. 2005) (allowing, without discussion of propriety of proceeding
under § 2255, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where defendant made showing that the
amount of loss and amount of restitution would have been substantially less).
Here, Defendant seeks relief from the Court’s order forfeiting the Real Property on grounds
of ineffective assistance of counsel. [Doc. 42 at 12]. This relief is unavailable under § 2255.
Moreover, characterizing Defendant’s motion as one for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is also
unavailing. See United States v. Ross, 801 F.3d 374, 380 (3d Cir. 2015) (“[T]he monetary
component of a sentence is not capable of satisfying the ‘in custody’ requirement of federal habeas
statutes.”); Arnaiz v. Warden, 594 F.3d 1326, 1329 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (restitution order
not challengeable in a Section 2241 petition); but cf. Fontanez v. O’Brien, 807 F.3d 84 (4th Cir.
2015) (distinguishing a § 2241 challenging the validity of the restitution order, which is not
cognizable under § 2241, from a challenge to the execution of the restitution portion of the
sentence, which is cognizable under § 2241).
Also pending is Defendant’s motion for appointment of counsel, which the Court construes
a motion for appointment of counsel to represent Defendant in the pending § 2255 proceedings.
[Doc. 39]. Defendant requests court-appointed counsel to “assist with a Money Judgment and
Preliminary Order of Forfeiture … because a lien has been placed on [her] property against the
Judge’s Order in [her] Case.” [Id.]. As grounds, Defendant states she is no longer able to afford
her retained counsel, Kenneth Snow. [Id.]. In § 2255 actions, appointment of counsel is governed
by the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, Rules 6(a) and 8(c), which mandate the appointment
of counsel where discovery is necessary or if the matter proceeds to an evidentiary hearing. Id.
Moreover, there is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a § 2255 proceeding.
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). The Court may appoint counsel to a financially
Case 3:23-cr-00156-MOC-SCR Document 47 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 7

6
eligible habeas petitioner if justice so requires. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). This Court finds
that Defendant has not shown that appointment of counsel is appropriate in this case. Moreover,
Defendant’s motion is also moot in any event given the denial of her § 2255 motion.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies and dismisses Defendant’s § 2255 motion to
vacate and denies Defendant’s motion for appointment of counsel.
The Court further finds that Defendant has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a
constitutional right. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong”)
(citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)). Defendant has failed to demonstrate both
that this Court’s dispositive procedural rulings are debatable, and that the Motion to Vacate states
a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at 484–85.
As a result, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See Rule 11(a), Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
O R D E R
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 42] is DENIED and DISMISSED.
Additionally, Defendant’s original Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 40] is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
[Doc. 39] is DENIED.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Cases, this
Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Case 3:23-cr-00156-MOC-SCR Document 47 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 7

Signed: January 27, 2026

ee RT VFM Lew

Max O. Cogburn Jr . “=
United States District Judge Bo ga

7
Case 3:23-cr-00156-MOC-SCR Document 47 Filed 01/27/26 Page 7 of 7