United States v. Ronald Jackson, No. 10-2027 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellant, formerly a police officer, pleaded guilty to the theft of federal-government property and appealed his sentencing enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G.") 2B1.1(b)(13)(B)(2009) and 3B1.1(c). At issue was whether appellant's possession of a firearm was sufficient to support a section 2B1.1(b)(13)(B) enhancement and whether appellant was an organizer or leader for the purposes of a section 3B1.1(c) enhancement. The court held that appellant's possession of a firearm was sufficient to support a section 2B1.1(b)(13)(B) enhancement where his police uniform, which included the firearm, cloaked him with apparent authority to arrest a certain individual, search her vehicle, and confiscate electronics; where his visible firearm, even when it remained holstered, was a signal of authority that would usually promote compliance in an ordinary citizen; and where the department's requirement that he possess the firearm as a tool to perform and carry out his duties only furthered this view. The court also held that the district court did not err in applying a section 3B1.1(c) enhancement where it heard testimony that it was appellant who initially planned the offense, that appellant recruited the accomplice, that appellant was the senior officer, that it was appellant's decision to split up the confiscated property, and that it was appellant who shared some of the stolen electronics with the informant. The court further found appellant's contention that the district court's sentence was based, even in part, on uncharged conduct as meritless.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not err in imposing enhancements under Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1(b)(13) and Sec. 3B1.(c) for possession of a weapon in connection with the offense and for a leadership role in organizing and leading the theft of government property; so long as the court treats the guidelines as advisory, facts regarding uncharged conduct may be considered by the court in selecting a sentence.
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.