USA v. Knight

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD ALLEN KNIGHT,
Defendant.
8:21-CR-248
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Richard Allen Knight’s Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting three ineffective assistance of counsel
claims. Filing 112. In a prior order, the Court denied Grounds Two and Three of Knight’s motion
and referred Ground One to United States Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson for an evidentiary
hearing. Filing 127. In Ground One, Knight alleges that his former counsel failed to file an appeal
despite Knight’s request for one. Filing 112 at 4. In anticipation of the evidentiary hearing on
Ground One, Knight was appointed new counsel. Filing 131. On March 17, 2026, Knight—through
his new counsel—filed a Motion to Withdraw § 2255 Motion and to Cancel Evidentiary Hearing.
Filing 153. That motion explains that Knight “has determined that it is in his best interest to
withdraw his § 2255 Motion.” Filing 153 at 1. Consequently, Knight asked the Court to grant his
request to withdraw his § 2255 motion and vacate the evidentiary hearing scheduled for March 24,
2026. Filing 153 at 2. On March 19, 2026, Judge Nelson held a motion hearing on Knight’s Motion
to Withdraw with Knight present and found that Knight had voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently
waived and withdrawn his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
8:21-cr-00248-BCB-MDN Doc # 157 Filed: 03/20/26 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
with regard to Ground One. Filing 153; Filing 156 (Audio File). Judge Nelson granted Knight’s
Motion to Withdraw and cancelled the upcoming evidentiary hearing. Filing 153.
Given that Ground One was the only remaining ground in Knight’s § 2255 motion and it has
now been withdrawn, the Court dismisses Knight’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in full. No appeal may be taken on a § 2255 motion to vacate
unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability, which requires the appellant to make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)–(2). To make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” after the district court denies a
constitutional claim on the merits, “[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). When a petition is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner
is entitled to a certificate of appealability if the petitioner “shows, at least, that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right
and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.” Id. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s decisions debatable in this case.
Therefore, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Richard Allen Knight’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, Filing 112, is denied in full given that it has been withdrawn; and
2. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
Dated this 20th day of March, 2026.
8:21-cr-00248-BCB-MDN Doc # 157 Filed: 03/20/26 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
BY THE COURT:
_________________________
Brian C. Buescher
United States District Judge
8:21-cr-00248-BCB-MDN Doc # 157 Filed: 03/20/26 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>