US v. Jackson: In 2021, Jackson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He objected to his base offense level being enhanced due to two prior South Carolina convictions for distribution of crack cocaine, arguing under Campbell that they did not meet the definition of “controlled substance offense.” The district court disagreed and imposed a sentence of 115 months, in the middle of the applicable advisory Guideline range.
Jackson took an appeal, arguing both the Campbell issue and that the district court had not adequately explained the basis for the sentence it imposed. The Fourth Circuit vacated the sentence, in an unpublished decision that concluded Campbell did apply to the South Carolina offenses. Prior to Jackson’s resentencing, however, the Fourth Circuit decided Groves and Davis, which severely limited the impact of Campbell. Davis, in particular, addressed the same South Carolina offenses at issue in Jackson’s case, concluded that they did, in fact, qualify as controlled substance offenses. Jackson was again sentenced to 115 months in prison.
On appeal for a second time, the Fourth Circuit again vacated Jackson’s sentence, but only after concluding that the Guideline calculations were correct. The court concluded that the mandate rule did not prevent the district court at resentencing to implementing the holding of the original appeal as to Campbell, as Groves and Davis (both published). Specifically, Davis is not in conflict with Campbell (in which case Campbell would control) because the court in Davis considered Campbell and concluded it did not apply to the South Carolina offenses. However, the court did conclude that the district court, once again, failed to adequately explain the sentence it imposed and vacated the sentence and remanded on that basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment