USA V. CHARLES JACKSON, No. 12-30232 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-30232 D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00020-SEH v. MEMORANDUM * CHARLES EDWARD JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 14, 2013 ** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Charles Edward Jackson appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Jackson s request for oral argument is denied. have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Jackson contends that his sentence 25 months above the high end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range is illegal and substantively unreasonable. We review the legality of a sentence de novo, see United States v. Fernandes, 636 F.3d 1254, 1255 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), and the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Jackson s 96-month sentence, which is two years below the applicable statutory maximum, is both legally authorized and substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of circumstances, including Jackson s extensive history of violence and gun-related offenses. See id. To the extent that Jackson argues that the government breached the parties plea agreement by advocating for a sentence above the Sentencing Guidelines range, we decline to consider this argument because it was raised for the first time in Jackson s reply brief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007). AFFIRMED. 2 12-30232
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.
