IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PERRION BLUFORD,

Defendant.

4:23-CR-3056

ORDER

The defendant has filed a motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty. Filing 

55. A hearing on that motion has been set. Filing 57. The purpose of this order 

is to set forth, for the parties, how the Court intends to proceed at that hearing.

BACKGROUND

The defendant was first charged in federal court in 2021 with possessing 

Ecstasy and marijuana with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, but that case was dismissed on the 

government's motion. Case no. 4:21-cr-3001. The parties agree that the basis 

for dismissal was that samples submitted for testing came back negative. 

Filing 56 at 1; filing 61 at 2; see filing 27 at 2. 

The defendant was indicted again in 2023, on three counts: (1) possession 

of marijuana with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; (2) 

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime—specifically, 

Count 1—in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and (3) being an unlawful drug user 

in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Filing 1. Counsel 

was appointed. Filing 13. The defendant entered into a plea agreement in 

which he agreed to plead guilty to Counts 1 and 3, and the government agreed 

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 62 Filed: 01/10/24 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 176
- 2 -

to dismiss Count 2 at sentencing. Filing 27 at 1. The parties agreed, pursuant 

to Rule 11(c)(1)(C), to a sentence on Count 1 of less than 5 years, and a sentence 

on Count 3 of 60 to 72 months, sentences to be served concurrently. Filing 27 

at 4. In other words, the plea agreement provides for a sentence of 5 to 6 years'

imprisonment. See filing 27 at 4. The plea agreement also contained a 

stipulated factual basis for the plea, which provided, as relevant: 

On January 13, 2021, police executed a search warrant at 

the defendant's residence in Lincoln, Nebraska. During the search, 

they located a number of pills which, based on their appearance, 

were suspected to be MDMA pills. They also found a few pounds of 

suspected marijuana, and suspected prescription medications. 

Police also located a Masterpiece Arms 5.7 by 28 mm pistol, which 

was loaded with 20 rounds of ammunition, and a box of additional 

ammunition. The police also located a total of $8,015 in United 

States currency in the home and on Bluford's person. 

Police were monitoring Bluford's Snapchat account 

beginning in 2019 and also in 2020. They observed several postings 

advertising the sale of drugs. 

A portion of the seized drugs were sent to the Nebraska State 

Patrol Crime Laboratory for testing. The portion which was first 

submitted for testing did not test positive for controlled 

substances. When the negative tests came back, a second sample 

from the drugs seized from Bluford's residence were sent in for 

testing. Suspected marijuana sent in from that sample tested was 

found to be marijuana. 

If this case were to proceed to trial, an investigator with the 

Lincoln/Lancaster Drug Task Force would testify that based on the 

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 62 Filed: 01/10/24 Page 2 of 10 - Page ID # 177
- 3 -

quantity of suspected drugs which were recovered, the manner in 

which they were packaged, the recovery of a significant amount of 

money, and the presence of a firearm, those factors are all 

consistent with the distribution of controlled substances, and 

inconsistent with possession of drugs solely for personal 

consumption. The investigator would further testify that those 

who are involved with distributing illegal drugs will sometimes 

sell both counterfeit and real drugs. Selling counterfeit drugs to 

people who believe they are purchasing actual drugs can be 

profitable.

Filing 27 at 2. The defendant signed a petition to enter guilty plea that 

incorporated by reference the factual basis in the plea agreement. Filing 26 at 

7. And at the change of plea hearing, the defendant admitted the following 

under oath:

THE COURT: On January 13th, of 2021, were you in 

Nebraska?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: While in Nebraska, on that date, did you have, 

in your possession, marijuana? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Did you know that it was marijuana?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Did you have it in your possession with the 

intent to distribute it to other people? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 62 Filed: 01/10/24 Page 3 of 10 - Page ID # 178
- 4 -

Filing 40 at 17. The Court accepted the defendant's plea of guilty on Counts 1 

and 3. Filing 42; see filing 40 at 19.

Shortly after the Court accepted the defendant's plea, the Magistrate 

Judge granted the defendant's appointed counsel leave to withdraw, because 

counsel had accepted a new job. Filing 43; see filing 41. New counsel was 

appointed and appeared. Filing 43; filing 44. After several extensions of the 

sentencing schedule, see filing 29, filing 45, filing 46, filing 47, filing 48, filing 

49, filing 50, filing 51, filing 52, the defendant filed the present motion to 

withdraw his pleas. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A defendant may withdraw a plea after the Court accepts it, but before 

imposing sentence, if the defendant can show a fair and just reason for 

requesting the withdrawal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); see United States v. 

Forjan, 66 F.4th 739, 751 (8th Cir. 2023). But when a defendant has entered a 

knowing and voluntary plea of guilty at a hearing at which he acknowledged 

committing the crime, the occasion for setting aside a guilty plea should seldom 

arise. Id. The defendant bears the burden of showing a fair and just reason for 

withdrawal. United States v. Eller, 955 F.3d 730, 733 (8th Cir. 2020). 

And, even if the defendant meets that burden, the Court must consider 

other factors before granting the motion, including whether the defendant 

asserts his innocence of the charge, the length of time between the guilty plea 

and the motion to withdraw it, and whether the government will be prejudiced 

if the court grants the motion. Id. There is no right to withdraw a plea—the 

plea of guilty is a solemn act not to be disregarded because of belated 

misgivings about its wisdom. United States v. Flynn, 969 F.3d 873, 877 (8th 

Cir. 2020). 

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 62 Filed: 01/10/24 Page 4 of 10 - Page ID # 179
- 5 -

DISCUSSION

The defendant advances two primary arguments for a "fair and just 

reason" to withdraw his plea, both sounding in ineffective assistance of counsel. 

First, he claims that "because of the erroneous advice of counsel, he believed 

that he would be found guilty of Count 2 at trial based only on evidence of the 

proximity of the firearm to the drugs." Filing 56 at 2. Second, he says he "also 

believed that his only options other than a trial on all counts were the 

11(c)(1)(C) agreement or to plead straight up to all three counts," because "[h]is 

prior counsel did not advise him that he could also plead guilty to one or two 

of the counts and have a trial on the remaining count(s)." Filing 56 at 2-3. In 

essence, he argues, he would not have accepted the plea agreement had he been 

told that Count 2—the dismissal of which was the primary incentive for his 

plea—was legally suspect.

Counsel's performance can provide a fair-and-just reason for 

withdrawing a guilty plea, but only if the defendant shows deficient 

performance and prejudice. United States v. Sisk, 999 F.3d 631, 635 (8th Cir. 

2021). To satisfy the first prong, the defendant must show that his first 

attorney's representation fell below an objectively reasonable standard. See id.

For the second prong, the defendant must prove that a reasonable probability 

exists that but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would 

have insisted on going to trial. See id.

To begin with, on the record as it is presented now, the Court is not 

persuaded that the defendant has shown deficient performance or prejudice in 

alleging that counsel "incorrectly advised Defendant that Defendant could be 

found guilty of Count 2 based only on evidence of the proximity of the firearm 

to drugs." Filing 56 at 5. It is true that 

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 62 Filed: 01/10/24 Page 5 of 10 - Page ID # 180
- 6 -

[t]o satisfy the "in furtherance of" element of § 924(c), the

government must present evidence from which a reasonable trier 

of fact could find a "nexus" between the defendant's possession of 

the charged firearm and the drug crime, such that this possession 

had the effect of furthering, advancing or helping forward the drug 

crime.

United States v. Robinson, 617 F.3d 984, 988 (8th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). It's 

also true that "the presence of a gun alone is not enough to prove possession in 

furtherance of a drug offense." United States v. Vang, 3 F.4th 1064, 1067 (8th 

Cir. 2021). 

But what does suffice is "evidence that the defendant's possession of the 

firearm facilitated the drug crime, through evidence that the firearm was used 

for protection, was kept near the drugs, or was in close proximity to the 

defendant during drug transactions." Robinson, 617 F.3d at 988 (emphasis 

supplied). That doesn't even require proximity to drugs: "a nexus can exist 

when a firearm is in proximity to items identified as relating to drug 

trafficking." Vang, 3 F.4th at 1067. The use of firearms to protect the proceeds

of drug trafficking also violates § 924(c). United States v. Druger, 920 F.3d 567, 

570 (8th Cir. 2019).

So, in Robinson, a loaded handgun's "proximity—within six feet—to 

saleable quantities of methamphetamine, digital scales, and pills used to 

manufacture methamphetamine coupled with . . . expert testimony regarding 

the use of firearms in methamphetamine trafficking could lead a reasonable 

trier of fact to conclude that [the defendant] possessed that weapon to protect 

his methamphetamine trafficking activities." 617 F.3d at 989. In Vang, the 

evidence was sufficient where the drugs themselves were located in the 

basement and the firearm was located two floors above, but in the same room 

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 62 Filed: 01/10/24 Page 6 of 10 - Page ID # 181
- 7 -

as drug money and ledgers. 3 F.4th at 1067. In United States v. Saddler, the 

evidence was sufficient when firearms were found 

in close proximity to 701.8 grams of marijuana and 80.26 grams of 

cocaine, to a safe that contained an additional 122.56 grams of 

cocaine, 65.42 grams of crack cocaine and $21,514.42 in cash, and 

to the other parts of the house that contained 2212 grams of 

marijuana, 597.74 grams of powder cocaine and 217.1 grams of 

crack cocaine.

538 F.3d 879, 888-89 (8th Cir. 2008). And in United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 

the jury's verdict was supported when 

[p]olice found the loaded firearm in the apartment's only bedroom, 

which was directly adjacent to the kitchen where police found 

quantities of methamphetamine in excess of that associated with 

personal use and a digital scale of the type commonly employed in 

the packaging and distribution of methamphetamine. Moreover, [a 

law enforcement witness] testified as to the role of firearms in 

protecting drug dealers, their drugs, and their business, a role that 

this court has long recognized. From the loaded weapon's 

proximity to saleable quantities of drugs and drug packaging 

paraphernalia and . . . expert testimony regarding the use of 

firearms in methamphetamine trafficking, the jury could have 

reasonably concluded that [the defendant] kept the weapon readily 

accessible to protect his drugs and his drug trafficking activities, 

thereby facilitating the charged drug crime. This was sufficient to 

support his conviction under § 924(c).

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 62 Filed: 01/10/24 Page 7 of 10 - Page ID # 182
- 8 -

461 F.3d 939, 946-47 (8th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

To summarize: The proposition that a firearm's proximity to drugs can 

support a § 924(c) conviction—at least, factually—appears to the Court to be a 

reasonable reading of the caselaw. The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly found 

that a firearm in close proximity to drugs is factually sufficient to prove the 

nexus between the firearm and the offense that's legally required. For a 

defense attorney, advising a client that he could be convicted of § 924(c) based 

on the items found in this defendant's home actually looks like pretty sound

advice.1 The Court has a hard time seeing how it was deficient, or how the 

defendant could have been prejudiced by it.

The defendant's second argument presents a harder issue. The 

defendant clearly knew he had a right to plead not guilty, filing 40 at 6, but 

the Court has found little in the record to this point establishing that the 

defendant specifically knew he had the right to plead guilty or not guilty to one 

but not all of the charged offenses. And perhaps that misapprehension, if 

proved, could establish a fair and just reason for withdrawal of a plea. 

At that point, the Court would need to consider other factors, such as 

assertions of innocence, time between plea and attempted withdrawal, and 

prejudice to the government. See Sisk, 999 F.3d at 635. The defendant's 

assertions of innocence carry little weight: He expressly admitted the factual 

basis for Count 1 under oath, and even now he admits Count 3. Filing 56 at 6.

And several weeks passed after the plea was accepted before moving to 

withdraw (although, to be fair, the appearance of new counsel would explain 

1 The Court notes that at least according to the presentence report, the drugs, gun, and 

ammunition were found in the same room, with the gun and drugs in the same closet. If the 

government can prove that....

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 62 Filed: 01/10/24 Page 8 of 10 - Page ID # 183
- 9 -

some of that). But the government hasn't pointed to any prejudice it would 

suffer as a result of permitting withdrawal. See filing 61. 

The Court will, accordingly, determine on the record whether the 

evidence, after the hearing, establishes that the defendant misapprehended his 

legal rights and, if so, whether he should be permitted to withdraw his plea, at 

least as to Count 1.2 Those are the questions the Court must answer. 

Whether the defendant should withdraw his plea is a question only he

can answer. But if the Court proceeds to trial on Counts 1 and 2, the 

government will undoubtedly present significant evidence of drug trafficking, 

starting with the defendant's admission under oath that he possessed 

marijuana intending to distribute it. The government will then presumably 

present evidence that the drugs were found in the defendant's home in the 

same closet as the gun, and expert testimony about the relationship between 

guns and drug trafficking. And if the jury finds that the gun and the drugs 

were related, the defendant will be facing at least an additional 5 years of 

imprisonment on Count 2, mandatorily consecutive to a sentence for Counts 1 

and 3 (which will itself be based on a Guidelines range likely to be in the 

neighborhood of 46 to 57 months' imprisonment).

3

But it's not the Court's job to rule on the wisdom of the defendant's 

choices. If the defendant insists on going forward with his motion to withdraw 

his plea, the Court will rule on it according to the principles set forth above. 

2 The defendant's motion is styled as a motion to withdraw his pleas, but it certainly looks to 

the Court like he really only wants to withdraw his plea as to Count 1. There's no point to 

withdrawing his plea as to Count 3 only to plead guilty to it again.

3 That's assuming the current presentence report is correct, without the 3-level adjustment 

for acceptance of responsibility.

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 62 Filed: 01/10/24 Page 9 of 10 - Page ID # 184
- 10 -

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea 

will be submitted on the evidence adduced at the January 12, 2024 

hearing.

Dated this 10th day of January, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard

Senior United States District Judge

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 62 Filed: 01/10/24 Page 10 of 10 - Page ID # 185