USA v. Randle Jackson, III, No. 16-50485 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-50485 Document: 00513818830 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-50485 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 3, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RANDLE JACKSON, III, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:09-CR-168-1 Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Randle Jackson, III, appeals his sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release after his convictions for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon. Jackson argues that the district court plainly erred in using an improper sentencing range from the supervised release revocation policy statement. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-50485 Document: 00513818830 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2017 No. 16-50485 While serving the sentences for his felon in possession convictions, Jackson escaped from custody. That resulted in an additional conviction. Jackson began serving his supervised release terms for both his felon in possession and escape convictions on August 29, 2014, his supervision was revoked in both cases, and in both he was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven months of imprisonment plus an additional two-year term of supervised release. On June 2, 2015, Jackson began his second supervised release terms, and, at a revocation hearing in both cases held on April 20, 2016, Jackson admitted to again violating supervised release. The district court sentenced Jackson to terms of imprisonment of 12 months and one day to be served concurrently in both cases with no additional supervised release. Jackson made no objection to the sentence imposed. The Government argues that the concurrent sentence doctrine applies and that we should decline to consider Jackson’s challenge to his sentence in the felon in possession cases because he is not challenging his concurrent sentence in the escape case. Under the concurrent sentence doctrine, an appellate court may decline to review a substantive challenge to a sentence when the sentence on the challenged conviction is being served concurrently with an equal or longer sentence on a valid conviction. United States v. Collins, 774 F.3d 256, 261 (5th Cir. 2014). “Under this doctrine, a tool of judicial economy, the existence of one valid sentence makes unnecessary the review of other sentences that run concurrently with it.” United States v. Soape, 169 F.3d 257, 266 n.4 (5th Cir. 1999). Applying the doctrine in a manner that removes the adverse collateral consequences of the sentence, we have adopted the policy of vacating the unreviewed sentence and suspending imposition of that sentence, while the valid conviction remains untouched. United States v. 2 Case: 16-50485 Document: 00513818830 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/03/2017 No. 16-50485 Stovall, 825 F.2d 817, 824 (5th Cir.), amended by later opinion, 833 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1987). The district court imposed sentences of 12 months and one day to run concurrently upon the revocation of supervised release in this case and in the escape case. Applying the concurrent sentence doctrine, we decline to review the revocation sentence in this case, vacate the revocation sentence, and remand with instructions to the district court to suspend imposition of the sentence. See Stovall, 825 F.2d at 824. Declining to review the revocation sentence serves the interests of judicial economy. Id. Application of the doctrine is also favored in a case such as this in which the challenge to the concurrent sentence is not related to guilt or innocence. Id. SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
