United States v. Jackson, No. 17-4258 (6th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
In 2004, Jackson was convicted of armed bank robbery, carrying and brandishing a firearm during the bank robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Based on two prior convictions for Ohio aggravated robbery and one for Ohio attempted robbery, the court designated Jackson an armed career criminal, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), and sentenced him to 360 months. In 2015, the Supreme Court invalidated the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause (Johnson). Jackson moved to vacate his sentence. In 2016, the Seventh Circuit held that Johnson’s logic applied to the Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause. Nevertheless, at Jackson’s subsequent resentencing, the court found that his prior convictions were crimes of violence under the Guidelines and resentenced Jackson to 346 months. In 2017, the Supreme Court (Beckles) upheld the Guidelines’ residual clause, abrogating the Seventh Circuit decision. Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 798, deleting the Guidelines residual clause, was not in effect at Jackson’s 2016 resentencing. The Seventh Circuit then held that Jackson’s earlier convictions amounted to crimes of violence under the residual clause but that the court committed procedural error by failing to explain the sentence. On remand, Jackson argued that he should be subject to the 2016 guidelines, without the residual clause. The court disagreed and resentenced Jackson to 244 months.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. When a court of appeals reverses a sentence imposed “in violation of law,” it must remand for resentencing under the guidelines in effect at the time of the previous sentencing. The Commission did not make the amendment retroactive and characterized the deletion not as “clarifying” but as a “matter of policy.” While deleting the residual clause resolved an ambiguity, it did not clarify existing law but eliminated that law and made new law.
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.