United States v. Arnold Jackson
26f4th994
D.C. Cir.2022Background
- Jackson, previously convicted in W.D. Va. of a large‑scale cocaine‑base conspiracy (life reduced to 192 months), was on supervised release when arrested in D.C. on drug charges.
- He accepted a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea in D.C. to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base for a fixed 48‑month term followed by 3 years supervised release; the written plea contained a broad waiver of appellate rights.
- At sentencing in D.C. Jackson asked for the D.C. sentence to run concurrently with any revocation sentence in W.D. Va.; the D.C. judge ordered the 48‑month term to run consecutively to any other sentence.
- W.D. Va. later sentenced Jackson to 12 months for supervised‑release violation; the W.D. Va. court granted compassionate release as to that 12‑month term only, leaving the D.C. sentence intact.
- Jackson filed two compassionate‑release motions in D.C. under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); the D.C. district court denied both for lack of extraordinary and compelling reasons and consistency with § 3553(a); Jackson appealed, and the appeals were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson may appeal the D.C. judge’s decision to run the 48‑month sentence consecutively to a then‑anticipated sentence | Jackson: plea waiver was invalid because the judge failed to advise him properly at the plea colloquy and the waiver is ambiguous as to consecutive sentences | Government: Jackson knowingly and voluntarily waived appellate rights in a clear written plea; waiver bars appeal | Held: Waiver enforceable; appeal of consecutive sentence foreclosed |
| Whether the Rule 11(b)(1)(N) colloquy defect (not explaining waived appeal rights) invalidates the waiver | Jackson: omission means plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary | Government: the entire record shows Jackson understood and voluntarily waived rights (signature, on‑the‑record confirmations, experienced counsel) | Held: Colloquy error harmless; record shows knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver |
| Whether the plea waiver is ambiguous as to appeals of consecutive or concurrent sentencing | Jackson: waiver ambiguous; ambiguous waivers construed against government (Hunt) | Government: waiver language "waive the right to appeal the sentence in this case, including but not limited to any term of imprisonment" plainly covers duration and consecutive/concurrent determinations | Held: No ambiguity; waiver unambiguously covers consecutive sentence appeal |
| Whether the D.C. district court abused its discretion in denying compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) | Jackson: COVID‑19 risk, obesity, and sleep apnea create extraordinary and compelling reasons; district court misapplied applicable policy statement | Government: movant failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons; § 3553(a) factors and public safety weigh against release | Held: No abuse of discretion; COVID‑19 and the asserted medical conditions did not compel release; any policy‑statement error was not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Adams, 780 F.3d 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (appeal waivers are generally enforceable)
- United States v. Lee, 888 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (harmless Rule 11 colloquy error where record shows a knowing, voluntary waiver)
- United States v. Hunt, 843 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (ambiguities in plea agreements construed against the drafter; ambiguous waivers not enforced)
- United States v. Long, 997 F.3d 342 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (standards for compassionate release review and absence of an applicable Sentencing Commission policy statement)
- United States v. Brown, 808 F.3d 865 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (plain‑error standard requires effect on substantial rights)
- United States v. Henry, 758 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (plea agreements interpreted using contract principles)