US v. Eric Jackson, No. 20-6590 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6590 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC L. JACKSON, a/k/a Tango, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00004-JPB-MJA-1) Submitted: November 17, 2020 Decided: November 20, 2020 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric L. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Akira Finucane, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric L. Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), Pub. L. No. 115391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. Although it found Jackson eligible for relief, the court exercised its discretion and declined to reduce Jackson’s term of imprisonment. In so doing, the court accurately described the procedural history and applicable law; evaluated the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and Jackson’s arguments in favor of a reduction; and explained its reasons for denying the motion. On this record, we discern no abuse of the court’s considerable discretion. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 495-97 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing decision on First Step Act motion for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jackson, No. 5:01-cr00004-JPB-MJA-1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 14, 2020). We deny Jackson’s motions for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.