United States v. Cornelius Jackson
669 F. App'x 178
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jackson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, receiving a 132-month sentence.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appellate issues, including improprieties in the Rule 11 plea colloquy and the sentence's reasonableness.
- Jackson did not file a supplemental pro se brief; the government chose not to file a response to the Anders brief.
- On review, the court must assess Rule 11 colloquy adequacy, as well as whether the plea was voluntary and supported by a factual basis, with plain-error review if no waiver was preserved.
- The court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard to sentencing, examining procedural and substantive reasonableness and the proper calculation of the Guidelines range.
- The district court’s findings and explanation for the below-Guidelines sentence were deemed adequate, supporting the appeal's affirmance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 colloquy adequacy | Jackson argues plea colloquy may be deficient | Jackson challenges the voluntariness and basis of the plea | No plain-error in the Rule 11 proceedings |
| Voluntariness and factual basis of the plea | Plea may not have been voluntary or supported by a factual basis | Plea was voluntary and supported | Plea knowingly and voluntarily entered; no plain-error shown |
| Sentence procedural reasonableness | District court erred procedurally in calculating guidelines or explaining the sentence | Sentence properly calculated and explained | No significant procedural error; proper calculation and explanation |
| Sentence substantive reasonableness | Below-Guidelines sentence may be substantively unreasonable | Sentence is substantively reasonable within framework | Presumption of substantive reasonableness preserved; sentence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 F.3d 738 (Supreme Court 1967) (requirement to review Anders filing for meritorious issues)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (define standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness)
- DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 colloquy standards and voluntariness; factual basis)
- Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review when no Rule 11 waiver preserved)
- Strieper, 666 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2012) (presumption of substantive reasonableness within properly calculated range)
- Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2007) (Anders review with government option to respond on waiver issue)