Source: http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180309_0000315.SIN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:57:45+00:00

Document:
For the reasons explained in this Entry, the motion of Brandon Lomax for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be denied and this action dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue.
On October 23, 2013, Mr. Lomax was charged in a multi-count multi-defendant indictment. Mr. Lomax was charged in count one with conspiracy to distribute 1, 000 grams or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Counts two through nine charged Mr. Lomax with distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Count 21 charged Mr. Lomax with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The United States had previously filed an information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1), which charged that Mr. Lomax had two prior felony controlled substance convictions.
A nine day jury trial was held from January 29 to February 10, 2014. The jury found Mr. Lomax guilty of all counts. On November 21, 2014, Mr. Lomax was sentenced to life imprisonment (life on count one; thirty years each on counts two through nine, and fifteen years on count 19, all counts to run concurrently) to be followed by ten years of supervised release. Mr. Lomax was also assessed a special assessment of $1000. The Court entered judgment on December 2, 2014.
Mr. Lomax appealed his conviction and sentence. On March 8, 2016, the Seventh Circuit upheld his conviction and sentence, finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish conspiracy and that there was no error in the district court's finding that he had two prior drug convictions, which enhanced his mandatory minimum sentence to life imprisonment. See United States v. Lomax, et al., 916 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 2016).
On March 27, 2017, Mr. Lomax filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during trial and claiming that Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), required modification of his sentence.
Mr. Lomax seeks relief arguing: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request that the court conduct an inquiry of the jury when counsel became aware of potential juror bias; and (2) based on Johnson, he is no longer an armed career criminal or a career offender, and his sentence is therefore unconstitutional. The United States argues that trial counsel was not ineffective and that Johnson offers Mr. Lomax no sentencing relief.
Mr. Lomax argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney, Mr. Richard L. Ford, failed to notify the court and seek an inquiry of the jury after he became aware that the entire jury told the government that they were in fear for their personal safety and wanted security escorts to and from their vehicles each day of trial.

References: § 2255
 § 841
 § 922
 § 851
 v. 
 § 2255
 v.