NKOSI Inc. and John Ways v. United States - Habeas Corpus Petition Denied

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Nkosi, Inc., a Nebraska corporation; and John Ways v. United States of America, and Chief U.S. Probation Officer for the District of Nebraska

District Court, D. Nebraska

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 4:26-cv-03007

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (6)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

NKOSI, INC., a Nebraska corporation; and
JOHN WAYS,
4:26CV3007
Petitioners,

vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and
CHIEF U.S. PROBATION OFFICER FOR
THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA,

Respondents.

This matter comes before the Court on NKOSI, Inc. and John Ways’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus. Filing No. 1. For the reasons stated herein, the Court lacks
jurisdiction over the motion and denies it.
I. BACKGROUND
John Ways was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to sell drug paraphernalia,
conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute a Schedule I controlled
substance, money laundering, and felon in possession of ammunition. Filing No. 623
(judgment) in United States of America v. John Ways, Jr., Case No. 8:12cr391. He was
sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 36 months, 180 months, 180 months,
and 120 months. Id. He filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the Court denied
on February 21, 2023. Filing No. 986 in Case No. 8:12cr391.
Counsel filed the present petition on behalf of NKOSI, Inc. See Filing No. 1 at 9.
John Ways is listed as a pro se co-petitioner. Id. at 1, 9. NKOSI was the company used
by Ways in conjunction with his money laundering charge. See Filing No. 986 at 6 in
Case No. 8:12cr391. Although not entirely clear, it appears the Petition alleges that Brady
violations, an improper warrant, and legal issues related to drug classification merit
reversing Ways’s conviction and restoring money to NKOSI. See Filing No. 1 at 6–8.
NKOSI was a party to the criminal forfeiture proceedings. See Filing No. 155 in Case No.
8:12cr391. In the criminal case, the Court disregarded NKOSI’s corporate entity and
regarded it instead as an alter ego of Ways, which finding the Eighth Circuit Court of

Appeals affirmed. See Filing No. 717 in Case No. 8:12cr391. Accordingly, upon
conclusion of the forfeiture of assets, the Court closed the criminal case against NKOSI.
See id. II. ANALYSIS
Ways and NKOSI have now filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking
to vacate the sentence imposed on Ways based on alleged defects in the underlying
criminal case. See generally Filing No. 1.
“A prisoner in custody under sentence . . . claiming the right to be released upon
the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence . . . or is
otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence
to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (a). Section 2255 is
intended to provide federal prisoners a remedy for jurisdictional or constitutional errors.
Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2011).
Under the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States
District Courts, the court must perform an initial review of the defendant’s § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Rule 4(b). “The judge who receives the motion must promptly
examine it. If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of
prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the
motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party. If the motion is not dismissed, the
judge must order the United States attorney to file an answer, motion, or other response
within a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may order.” Id. The Court conducts its initial review as to each of the two named Petitioners

separately.
A. NKOSI
NKOSI is not “[a] prisoner in custody under sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (a).
Rather, it is a corporate entity which was determined to be the alter ego of John Ways in
the criminal case. The case against NKOSI was dismissed once its property was
forfeited. NKOSI was not convicted or sentenced. Accordingly, NKOSI does not fall within
the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the Court is without jurisdiction to hear its petition.
B. Ways
As to Ways, the Court also cannot hear his petition, but for different reasons.

The Court cannot entertain a “second or successive” § 2255 motion absent a
certification from the Court of Appeals verifying that the motion contains “newly
discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would
be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder
would have found the movant guilty of the offense” or “a new rule of constitutional law,
made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 (b)(3) & 2255(h). Without pre-approval from the
appropriate circuit court, a trial court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See Boykin v. United States, 242 F.3d 373, 2000 WL 1610732,
at *1 (8th Cir. 2000).
Ways previously filed a motion under § 2255 in his criminal case which this Court
denied. Filing No. 986 in Case 8:12cr391. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the denial. Filing No. 1006 in Case 8:12cr391. Ways does not have authorization from

the Eighth Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, this Court lacks
jurisdiction over his petition.
C. Certificate of Appealability
Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”),
the right to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion is governed by the certificate of
appealability requirements codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c). Jones v. Delo, 258 F.3d 893,
900–01 (8th Cir. 2001). The court may grant a certificate of appealability only where the
movant “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253 (c)(2). The movant must show “the issues are debatable among reasonable jurists,

a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings.”
Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882–83 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S.
430, 432, (1991) (per curiam)); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000).
As explained in detail above, the Court is without authority to decide the present
motion as to either Petitioner. No reasonable jurist could debate the Court’s lack of
jurisdiction. The Court therefore declines to grant a certificate of appealability in this case.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it plainly appears from the motion and record of prior
proceedings that Petitioners are not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly,
the motion is dismissed on initial review.
IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Filing No. 1, is denied.
2. No certificate of appealability will issue.
3. The Court will enter a separate judgment.

Dated this 6th day of February, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge