USA v. Turner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARNEY TURNER,
Defendant.
8:21CR78
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant Carney Turner’s (“Turner”) pro se
Motion to Amend (Filing No. 320).
On May 25, 2022, Turner pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to engage in
sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c); three counts of sex
trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a); and two counts of enticement
of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). 	The Court sentenced Turner to
concurrent life terms on each count.
He appealed “his convictions for conspiracy and sex trafficking of a minor,
arguing that the superseding indictment failed to state any offense under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1591(a).” 	United States v. Turner, 94 F.4th 739, 741 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 145 S.
Ct. 216 (2024). 	He further challenged the Court’s application of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines and argued his life sentence was substantively unreasonable. 	See
id. at 744-46. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. See id. at 746.
Turner now seeks post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Filing No. 310).
In the months leading up to the deadline for filing his § 2255 motion, Turner repeatedly
sought more time (Filing Nos. 303, 305, 308). 	The Court denied each request (Filing
Nos. 304, 306, 309), explaining this Court did “not have jurisdiction to grant his request
for an extension of time because he ha[d] not actually filed a § 2255 motion.” 	United
8:21-cr-00078-RFR-MDN Doc # 321 Filed: 02/23/26 Page 1 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
States v. Turner, No. 8:21CR78, 2025 WL 2615055, at *1 (D. Neb. Sept. 10, 2025)
(citations omitted).
Turner timely filed his motion on October 7, 2025. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). He now
seeks leave to amend each of his four original grounds for relief. The Court will consider
his proposed amendments only so far as they arise out of a “common core of operative
facts.” 	Mayle v. Feliz, 545 U.S. 644, 659 (2005). 	The Court has reviewed the
amendments proposed by Turner. He first seeks to amend “Ground One” to add:
Ineffective Assistance of counsel
(a) 	Failure to inform the Pro Se Petitioner of the Nature of Causation.
(b) 	Coercion and Fraudulent inducement in to plea contract and/or “open plea.”
(c) 	Patently unreasonable representation.
It does not appear that the proposed amendments (b) and (c) materially change the
first ground for relief and will therefore be considered as part of Ground One. Any other
proposed amendments to Ground One are untimely.
In his proposed amendments to Grounds Two, Three and Four, Turner seeks to add
new and completely different arguments from those raised in the initial motion. 	For
example, in Ground Two, he raises the following:
(a) 	Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction.
(b) 	Defective Warrant Affidavit.
(c) 	No transaction of business over the internet.
Those amendments do not relate to the original Ground Two or any portion of the
original motion. The proposed amendments are untimely and will not be allowed.1
1Even if they were proper amendments, those should have been raised in Turner’s
appeal. 	See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165 (1982) (explaining “a collateral
challenge may not do service for an appeal”).
8:21-cr-00078-RFR-MDN Doc # 321 Filed: 02/23/26 Page 2 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
With regard to the proposed Ground Three amendment, Turner simply seeks to
add 	that 	the 	judgment 	was 	void 	because 	the 	Court 	had 	“lack 	of 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction.” That proposed amendment is also denied.
Finally with regard to his proposed amendment of Ground Four, Turner seeks to
add the following:
Violation of the detention Act
(a) 	The Trafficking Victims Protection Act is a matter of International Law (see
Title 22: 	Foreign Relations & Intercourse, Chapter 78). 	Petitioner’s underlying
criminal conduct raises questions of domestic law (wholly), Federal employment
of 	the Trafficking Victims 	Protection Act 	herein 	encroaches 	upon 	the 	state
sovereignty & police power reserved to the States. (See Federalism).
This proposed amendment, apart from being rambling and unclear, is unrelated to
any of the original grounds for relief raised by Turner and is therefore rejected as
untimely.2
For the foregoing reasons, Turner’s Motion to Amend (Filing No. 320) is granted
in part and denied in part.
The government’s response to Turner’s § 2255 motion is due today. 	In light of
Turner’s motion and this Memorandum and Order, the Court will extend the deadline for
the government to respond to March 11, 2026. No further extensions will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2Again, this seeming challenge to the law and its application are subjects that
should have been raised on appeal.
8:21-cr-00078-RFR-MDN Doc # 321 Filed: 02/23/26 Page 3 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
Dated this 23rd day of February 2026.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
8:21-cr-00078-RFR-MDN Doc # 321 Filed: 02/23/26 Page 4 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>