United States v. Alton Jackson
20-13277
| 11th Cir. | Sep 8, 2021Background
- Appellant Alton Jackson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; the district court imposed a 75‑month sentence above the Guidelines range.
- The district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 enhancement for a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large‑capacity magazine; ATF testimony described the device as box‑like (not a tubular .22 device).
- The Sentencing Commission adopted the § 2K2.1 enhancement in the 1990s; Jackson argued the Commission lacked authority to retain it after the 1994 Violence Crime Control Act expired in 2004.
- The court also imposed an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 based on Jackson’s criminal history and perceived high risk of recidivism; the court considered juvenile adjudications and nonconviction information in the PSI.
- Jackson argued (1) misapplication and lack of Commission authority for § 2K2.1, (2) improper upward departure procedure under § 4A1.3 (departure vs. variance), and (3) due‑process/Miller concerns about considering juvenile records and arrests not resulting in conviction.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held the Commission had authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994(a) to promulgate § 2K2.1, the enhancement was factually supported, the court effectively imposed a § 4A1.3 departure without prejudice under plain‑error review, and consideration of juvenile/PSI material was permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability and authority for U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 enhancement | Commission lacked constitutional authority to retain the enhancement after the 1994 Act expired; device here falls within the commentary exception (tubular .22) | Commission acted under 28 U.S.C. § 994(a); device was non‑tubular (box magazine) so enhancement applies | Affirmed: Commission had authority under § 994(a); government proved enhancement by preponderance; device was not a tubular .22 exception |
| Upward increase under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 — departure vs. variance and procedure | Sentencing used a departure without following the step‑by‑step method and failed to give proper procedure/justification | Court gave advance notice, focused on criminal history and recidivism, referred to § 4A1.3; any procedural mistake reviewed for plain error and did not affect substantial rights | Affirmed: Court departed under § 4A1.3; failure to recite step‑by‑step at hearing was harmless under plain‑error review because outcome identical to proper method |
| Consideration of juvenile adjudications and nonconviction PSI material; Miller argument | Court violated due process by failing to account for youth/immaturity (citing Miller) and relied on arrests/juvenile records without convictions | Courts may consider reliable PSI information and juvenile conduct for § 4A1.3 departures; Miller does not apply to adult sentences for adult crimes | Affirmed: No plain error—Miller inapplicable; district court permissibly relied on reliable juvenile/PSI information when defendant did not specifically dispute those facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (procedural requirements for imposing sentences outside the Guidelines)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (§ 3553(a) requires sentence "sufficient but not greater than necessary")
- United States v. Sammour, 816 F.3d 1328 (methods for § 4A1.3 departure: step‑by‑step or recalculation)
- United States v. Hall, 965 F.3d 1281 (distinguishing departures and variances; notice requirement for § 4A1.3 departures)
- United States v. Williams, 989 F.2d 1137 (district courts may consider remote juvenile sentences and reliable PSI conduct for departures)
- United States v. McCloud, 818 F.3d 591 (court may not rely on disputed PSI facts unless gov't proves them by a preponderance)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (factors to consider when sentencing juveniles to life without parole; relied on by appellant but held inapplicable here)
- United States v. Castro, 455 F.3d 1249 (standard of review for statutory and Guidelines interpretation)