USA V. DANEYELLE JACKSON, No. 13-50171 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED FEB 27 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-50171 D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01325-MMM v. MEMORANDUM* DANEYELLE JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÃ N, O SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Daneyelle Jackson appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). 13-50171 Jackson contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to calculate the applicable Guidelines range; (2) failing to adequately explain the sentence; (3) failing to address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (4) relying on improper factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. Jackson has not shown a reasonable probability that she would have received a different sentence had the court explicitly calculated the Guidelines range or explained why it adopted the range applicable to Jackson s underlying offense rather than the range provided in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the district court adequately addressed the relevant sentencing factors and did not rely on any impermissible factor. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2006). To the extent Jackson contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Jackson s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Jackson s repeated probation violations. See id. AFFIRMED. 2 13-50171
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.
