USA v. GADSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BERNARD GADSON, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
) 	2:19-cr-00122-JAW-2
v. 	) 	2:24-cv-00443-JAW
) 	2:21-cr-00163-JAW-1
) 	2:24-cv-00444-JAW
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
On August 7, 2026, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an extended
recommended decision in response to Bernard Gadson’s petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 	§ 2255 and his 	motion 	to update 	the 	presentence 	investigation 	report.
Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Mot. and Mot. to Update Presentence Rep.
Crim. Hist. Calc. (ECF No. 321) (Rec. Dec.). 	In his recommended decision, the
Magistrate Judge rejected all of Mr. Gadson’s claims of error save one. Id. at 2.
The successful claim of error, according to the Magistrate Judge, involves the
calculation of Mr. Gadson’s criminal history category. Id. at 14-21. At his sentencing
hearing on May 26, 2022, the District Judge found that Mr. Gadson was a Criminal
History Category IV. Tr. of Proc., 51:16-52:2 (ECF No. 230). This determination was
consistent with the Probation Office’s assessment of Mr. Gadson’s criminal history.
Presentence Investigation Rep. at 16-19 (ECF No. 204). 	The Probation Office
Case 2:21-cr-00163-JAW Document 173 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
calculated Mr. Gadson’s criminal history score at eight, id. ¶ 49, which placed Mr.
Gadson in the middle of criminal history category IV. 	However, as the Magistrate
Judge observed, the criminal history score of eight included two-points for a 2014
commonwealth of Massachusetts conviction for breaking and entering, id. ¶ 48, and
if this conviction did not count toward his criminal history, his criminal history
category would be reduced to a criminal history category III. 	Rec. Dec. at 14. With
a criminal history category III, his guideline range would drop from the 124 to 149
month range that the sentencing judge applied at the sentencing hearing to a 111 to
132 month range. 	Id. 	In his motion, Mr. Gadson provided documentation that his
2014 breaking and entering conviction had been vacated. See Mot. to Update Correct
PSR Crim. Hist. Point Calc., Attach. 1, Letter from Att’y Danya F. Fullerton to FCI
Florence (Feb. 6, 2025) (ECF No. 294).
In his recommended decision, the Magistrate Judge engaged in a thorough and
persuasive analysis of whether post-conviction relief is available to someone whose
sentence was based in part on a subsequently vacated conviction. Id. at 14-21. The
Magistrate Judge recommended that Mr. Gadson be resentenced with the new
guideline calculation not based on a vacated offense. Id. at 21. The Government did
not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
Having performed a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision, the Court AFFIRMS the recommended decision on Bernard Gadson’s
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (§ 2255) (ECF No. 321), GRANTS
the Motion insofar as he seeks resentencing under criminal history category III, and
Case 2:21-cr-00163-JAW Document 173 Filed 09/10/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
ORDERS that Bernard Gadson be resentenced. 	The Court also AFFIRMS the
Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision on Bernard Gadson’s Motion to Update
Correct PSR Criminal History Point Calculation (ECF No. 294) and DISMISSES his
motion as moot. 	The Court has already appointed counsel to represent Mr. Gadson
for purposes of resentencing. 	Finally, should Mr. Gadson request a certificate of
appealability, the Court DENIES such a certificate pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Cases because there is no substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(c)(2).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 10 th day of September, 2026
Case 2:21-cr-00163-JAW Document 173 Filed 09/10/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>