USA v. JOHNSON et al

Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Case Nos.: 3:20cr40/TKW/MAL
3:24cv18/TKW/MAL
DEMONTE EASLEY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Demonte Easley’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence, ECF No. 572, is before me for review. After careful
consideration of the parties’ submissions, 1 the record and the relevant law, I
recommend the section 2255 motion be denied without an evidentiary hearing.
Easley’s two claims challenging the application of the § 851 sentencing
enhancement are procedurally barred. Even if the procedural hurdle were excused,
counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the arguments Easley offers.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2021, Easley pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance (Count One); and (2)
1 In addition to Easley’s motion, the Government filed a response in opposition, ECF No. 580,
and Easley filed a reply. ECF No. 583.
Case 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-MAL Document 677 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 10

Page 2 of 10
possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (Count Eight), both in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a). ECF Nos. 53, 313, 314, 317-320, 469. Before he
entered his plea, the Government filed an information under 18 U.S.C. § 851 stating
that Easley had previously been convicted of two “serious drug felonies”2 and listed
his 2012 convictions for “Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to
Sell/Manufacture/Deliver” in violation of § 893.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat., and
“Sell/Deliver a Controlled Substance within 1,000 Feet of a Place of Worship,” in
violation of § 893.13(1)(e)1, Fla. Stat. ECF No. 222 at 1, 222-1 at 1. The § 851
information specifically sought to enhance Easley’s mandatory minimum sentence
from ten years to fifteen years of incarceration followed by at least ten years (instead
of at least five years) of supervised release. ECF No. 222 at 2. Although the
information listed two prior convictions, only one was needed because the
enhancement sought by the Government applies when a person has “a prior
2 “The term ‘serious drug felony’ means an offense described in section 924(e)(2) of Title 18
for which--(A) the offender served a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months; and (B) the
offender's release from any term of imprisonment was within 15 years of the commencement of
the instant offense.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(58). As applicable to Easley, section 924(e)(2) of Title 18
uses to term “serious drug offense” to describe “an offense under State law, involving
manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), for which
a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e)(2)(ii).
Case 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-MAL Document 677 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 10

Page 3 of 10
conviction for a serious drug felony.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).3
At sentencing, the court determined Easley had a total offense level of 37 and
a criminal history category of VI, yielding an advisory guideline imprisonment range
of 360 months to life. See ECF No. 470 at 15. Because the low end of Easley’s
advisory guidelines range was 360 months (30 years), the § 851 enhancement, which
increased the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment from ten years to fifteen
years, did not affect the guidelines imprisonment range. The enhancement did,
however, increase Easley’s mandatory minimum term of supervised release from
five to ten years. The court sentenced Easley to concurrent terms of 360 months’
imprisonment on each count, followed by a ten-year term of supervised release. ECF
Nos. 404, 405.
On appeal, Easley’s appointed attorney filed an Anders brief and moved to
withdraw because there were no arguable issues of merit for appeal. United States v.
Easley, No. 21-12695, 2023 WL 1860967, at *1 (11th Cir. Feb. 9, 2023); ECF No.
564. Easley filed his own pro se response, raising arguments challenging the
enhancement. See Easley, Case 21-12695, ECF No. 44. The Eleventh Circuit found
no arguable issues of merit. Easley, 2023 WL 1860967, at *1. The appellate court
3 Individuals with two or more prior convictions are subject to a minimum mandatory 25 years
of imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
Case 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-MAL Document 677 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 10

Page 4 of 10
specifically rejected Easley’s pro se arguments and found that his prior convictions,
both of which were violations of section 893.13, Florida Statutes, qualified as
predicates supporting the enhancement under binding circuit precedent. Id.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Ground One
In Ground One, Easley claims counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that
his conviction for distribution of crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of
worship (§ 893.13(1)(e)1, Fla. Stat.) is not a serious drug felony. ECF No. 572 at 4.
Easley contends the statute “creates a single drug offense that could be committed
by alternative means” and therefore it is categorically overbroad and indivisible.
ECF No. 572-1 at 18. He does not identify any part of the statute that makes it
overbroad or otherwise explain what he means.
Easley’s claim is procedurally barred because the Eleventh Circuit
specifically found on appeal that each of Easley’s two prior convictions qualified as
a “serious drug felony.” Easley, 2023 WL 1860967, at *1; ECF No. 564 at 2-3.
Therefore, Easley is procedurally barred from relitigating the issue in this § 2255
proceeding. Seabrooks v. United States, 32 F. 4th 1375, 1383-84 (11th Cir. 2022).
Additionally, counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise Easley’s
argument, which is devoid of any explanation and reasoning. Counsel does not
Case 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-MAL Document 677 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 10

Page 5 of 10
perform deficiently by failing to preserve or argue a meritless claim. Hollis v. United
States, 95 F. 3d 1120, 1124 (11th Cir. 2020).
Finally, Easley cannot show prejudice because only one conviction was
needed for his sentencing enhancement. Easley’s enhancement, which increased his
minimum mandatory sentence to fifteen years, applies to individuals with only a
single prior conviction for a serious drug felony. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Easley
challenges only his conviction for distribution of crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of
a place of worship. ECF No. 572-1 at 12-18. He does not challenge his other
conviction for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Because only
one conviction was needed to support the enhancement, a challenge to only one of
the two convictions can have no impact on the validity of the enhancement, and
Easley cannot establish prejudice from counsel’s failure to raise this argument. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (to prevail on claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both deficient performance
and prejudice).
B. Section 851 is not void for vagueness
In Ground Two, Easley contends counsel was ineffective for not challenging
the § 851 enhancement statute as unconstitutionally vague because it “failed to put
[Easley] on notice of the manner and extent to which the ‘serious drug felony’ under
Case 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-MAL Document 677 Filed 04/30/26 Page 5 of 10

Page 6 of 10
841(b)(1)(A) qualified him for enhancement purposes.” ECF No. 572-1 at 21-22.
Easley claims that the requirement that the prosecutor “file an information” does not
adequately “define what behavior is deemed in the information as barred.” Id. at 22.
Easley raised a vagueness argument on direct appeal.4 It is unclear if he is
rearguing the same issue. To the extent he is rearguing the same issue, he is
procedurally barred from litigating it again in a § 2255 proceeding. Seabrooks, 32 F.
4th at 1383. To the extent Easley is not rearguing the same issue, counsel did not
perform below professional standards by failing to raise Easley’s argument.
A criminal statute is void for vagueness if it fails to “define the criminal
offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what
conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement.” Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. 256, 262 (2017)
(citing cases). Section 851 is not vague because it sets forth in detail what the
prosecution is required to do to file a notice, called an information, that identifies the
4 Easley argued that “a stricter standard in reviewing a statute for vagueness” applies when
criminal penalties are imposed. United States v. Easley, Eleventh Circuit Case 21-12685, ECF No.
44-2 at 10. He argued that “the potentially harsh penalty attached to a statutory violation support[s]
[reading in a] mens rea requirement.” Id. at 11. He argued that strict liability offenses are
disfavored and that application of an enhancement for a serious drug offense violates due process.
Id. at 12-14. He argued that his sentencing enhancement should require some showing that “he
knew he was violating by being a convicted felon for distribution of drugs at the state level, the
‘serious drug offense’ disposition of 924(e)”. Id. at 19.
Case 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-MAL Document 677 Filed 04/30/26 Page 6 of 10

Page 7 of 10
prior convictions relied upon for an enhancement, and it also provides a defendant
the opportunity to respond, either affirming or denying the previous conviction.
Furthermore, definitions of terms used to identify a qualifying prior conviction are
provided in 21 U.S.C.§ 802(58) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2). These provisions were
sufficient to give Easley fair notice that his prior convictions under section 893.13,
Florida Statutes, which were listed in the § 851 information, were serious drug
felonies that would subject him to an enhanced sentence. See United States v.
Johnson, 664 F. App’x 839, 841 (11th Cir. 2016) (rejecting vagueness challenge to
the definition of “serious drug offense” as applied to a conviction under
section 893.13, Florida Statutes). His counsel did not perform below professional
standards by failing to raise Easley’s argument.
Easley also asserts that § 851 is “standardless” and allows prosecutors to
“pursue their personal predilections.” ECF No. 572-1 at 22. Contrary to Easley’s
allegations, as other courts have found, “[n]othing in the statute encourages seriously
discriminatory enforcement,” and furthermore, he has not demonstrated any such
discriminatory prosecutorial conduct in this case. See Johnson v. United States, No.
2:06-CR-4-FTM-29SPC, 2012 WL 2996593, at *5 (M.D. Fla. July 23, 2012); see
also United States v. Banks, No. 23-cr-307 (JRT/DTS), 2025 WL 2936792, at *12
(D. Minn. May 9, 2025) (holding that the “plain language of § 851(a) and the
Case 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-MAL Document 677 Filed 04/30/26 Page 7 of 10

Page 8 of 10
underlying enhancement, § 841(b)(1)(B), are not ‘so vague that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’”)
(citing cases).
For these reasons, the Court finds Easley’s claims in Ground Two are without
merit. Thus, Easley cannot show deficient performance or prejudice due to his
counsel’s failure to raise these arguments. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 (1984) (to
prevail on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both
deficient performance and prejudice).
III. CONCLUSION
An evidentiary hearing is not necessary to resolve Easley’s claims because
“the motion and files and records conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to
no relief.” See 28 U.S.C. ' 2255(b); Rosin v. United States, 786 F.3d 873, 877 (11th
Cir. 2015). Even if the procedural hurdles were excused, Easley has not shown
counsel was ineffective for failing to raise either of the arguments he makes herein.
His motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
should be denied.
IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings provides that
“[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
Case 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-MAL Document 677 Filed 04/30/26 Page 8 of 10

Page 9 of 10
final order adverse to the applicant,” and if a certificate is issued “the court must
state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2).” A timely notice of appeal must still be filed, even if the court issues
a certificate of appealability. Rule 11(b), § 2255 Rules.
After reviewing the record, the court finds no substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84
(2000) (explaining how to satisfy this showing) (citation omitted). Therefore, it is
also recommended that the court deny a certificate of appealability in its final order.
The second sentence of Rule 11(a) provides: “Before entering the final order,
the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should
issue.” If there is an objection to this recommendation by either party, that party may
bring this argument to the attention of the district judge in the objections permitted
to this report and recommendation.
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. The § 2255 motion, ECF No. 572, be DENIED.
2. A certificate of appealability be DENIED.
Done on April 30, 2026.
s/ Midori A. Lowry
Midori A. Lowry
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-MAL Document 677 Filed 04/30/26 Page 9 of 10

Page 10 of 10
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The case was referred to a magistrate judge for the issuance of all preliminary
orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters.
See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different deadline
that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only and does
not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections on all other
parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-MAL Document 677 Filed 04/30/26 Page 10 of 10