1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case No. 20-CR-233

v.

Judge John Robert Blakey

ARUS WOODS, JR.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On October 7, 2021, Defendant Arus Woods, Jr. pled guilty to bank robbery, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). See [84], [85]. This Court sentenced him on March 

29, 2022 to 35 months in custody, with credit for time served in federal custody, 

followed by three years of supervised release. See [121].1 

On December 11, 2022, Mr. Woods moved for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 

asking the Court to retract its finding at sentencing that he brandished a weapon. 

See [132]. Mr. Woods claims that the Court’s brandishing finding makes him a violent 

offender in the BOP’s view, which means he must serve his time in a medium-level 

prison and remains ineligible for work release after he serves his time. Id. The 

government opposes his § 2255 motion, see [134]. 

1 The original judgment included a statement that restitution of $4,914 had previously been satisfied 

with seized funds. See [121] at 7. The Court entered an amended judgment on April 21, 2022, 

modifying the initial restitution order to indicate that the prior amount, $4,914, remained outstanding 

and requiring Mr. Woods to pay this amount to Merchants and Manufacturers Bank. See [126].

Case: 1:20-cr-00233 Document #: 140 Filed: 06/01/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:697
2

Under § 2255, relief is available only when the court imposes a sentence in 

violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, the court lacked jurisdiction

to impose the sentence, the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum authorized by 

law, or the sentence “is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” Torzala v. United 

States, 545 F.3d 517, 521 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). The Seventh 

Circuit cautions that “relief under § 2255 is an extraordinary remedy because it asks 

the district court essentially to reopen the criminal process to a person who already 

has had an opportunity for full process.” Almonacid v. United States, 476 F.3d 518, 

521 (7th Cir. 2007). A § 2255 motion is not a substitute for a direct criminal appeal. 

Varela v. United States, 481 F.3d 932, 935 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Given the requisite standard, the Court denies Defendant’s motion [132]. 

First, the application of the brandishing enhancement remains consistent with 

the factual record, including Mr. Woods’ plea agreement. As part of his plea 

agreement, Mr. Woods admitted that, on December 31, 2019, he entered the 

Merchants and Manufacturers Bank “wearing a black face mask, a black hooded 

sweatshirt, dark pants, and gloves” and “pointed an object wrapped in a black plastic 

bag at bank employees.” [85] at 2. Mr. Woods acknowledged in his plea agreement 

that the bank employees “believed defendant was pointing a firearm,” and that they 

gave him “$4,914 in bank funds, including approximately 25 bait bills.” Id. In 

conjunction with a video of the offense, this admission helped form the agreed factual 

predicate for the brandishing enhancement. Indeed, Mr. Woods does not argue that 

Case: 1:20-cr-00233 Document #: 140 Filed: 06/01/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:698
3

the Court’s sentence violated the Constitution or any law, or otherwise remains open 

to collateral attack. 

Additionally, Mr. Woods’ opposition to the brandishing enhancement is not 

new and his motion raises nothing new in terms of a basis to retract the prior finding. 

Even though Mr. Woods’ current motion offers a new reason for wanting to avoid the 

brandishing enhancement—his desire to participate in work release—at sentencing, 

he raised a legal challenge to the application of this same enhancement, and the 

Court fully considered his arguments and objections at that time. He makes no claim 

that the Court got it wrong and does not challenge the bases for the Court’s 

sentencing findings. Instead, he asks the Court to “correct” his sentence and 

eliminate the brandishing finding so that he can participate in a work release 

program after serving his sentence. But that is not an appropriate basis for relief 

under § 2255. 

At sentencing, in light of Defendant’s admission concerning his hand and the 

plastic bag, the Court noted that the plain language of the guidelines was inconsistent 

with the defense theory that the enhancement could not apply in the absence of an 

object (a gun or a toy gun). In particular, the Court cited application note (2) to 

§ 2B3.1, which provides that an object shall be considered to be a dangerous weapon 

for purposes of § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) if “the defendant used the object in a manner that 

created the impression that the object was an instrument capable of inflicting death 

or serious bodily injury (e.g., a defendant wrapped a hand in a towel during a bank 

Case: 1:20-cr-00233 Document #: 140 Filed: 06/01/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:699
4

robbery to create the appearance of a gun).” (emphasis added). Noting that Mr. Woods 

walked into the bank with his hand wrapped in a plastic bag to make it look as if he 

had a gun, this Court specifically asked defense counsel how his theory or objection 

to the enhancement could withstand a plain reading of this provision and the agreed 

facts in his plea agreement. [135] at 22. In response, counsel argued that, despite 

this plain language, he still believed that the defendant needed to be holding some 

object, whether it be a real gun or a toy gun, and to the extent the plain language said 

otherwise, he chalked this up to imprecise drafting. Id. at 23–24. The Court rejected 

the argument and found that the Government had, in fact, demonstrated by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the brandishing enhancement applied: 

It is clear in the video that the defendant had an object in his right hand. 

The shape and size of it was more than just his own hand. Though under 

the guidelines, his hand would have been sufficient. It was wrapped in 

such a way that the shape was consistent with a firearm, at least a

handgun, and the manner in which the defendant used it was consistent 

with the guideline as well. And I’m making that finding not just on the 

-- based on the video, which is disputed -- I'm resolving that dispute here 

against the defendant as a matter of fact -- but also the other portions

of the record, including defendant’s own admissions in the factual record 

and the other portions of the factual record the Court mentioned earlier. 

* * *

I’ll state now, though, that I don’t believe it’s a close issue especially 

when you read 2B3.1(b)(2)(E), Note 2. This is squarely within what the 

guidelines intended and the guidelines are written with precision at 

least in this instance -- not in all instances, but certainly in this one --

and with respect, the defendant’s objection to the government’s 

enhancement is overruled.

Id. at 26–27. Notably, Mr. Woods did not appeal the Court’s sentence. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00233 Document #: 140 Filed: 06/01/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:700
5

The Court appreciates that Mr. Woods wants to take advantage of a work 

release program at the end of his sentence. But that desire does not merit relief under 

§ 2255. Accordingly, and for the same reasons articulated on the record at sentencing, 

the Court rejects Mr. Woods’ arguments concerning the brandishing enhancement, 

denies Defendant’s motion to correct sentence [132], and denies as moot his motion 

for a ruling [137]. 

Dated: June 1, 2023 ENTERED:

____________________________

John Robert Blakey

United States District Judge

Case: 1:20-cr-00233 Document #: 140 Filed: 06/01/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:701