United States v. Jackson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5988

Jackson pled guilty to bank robbery under a cooperation plea agreement.
Before proffer, the government promised that statements during proffer would not be used directly against him.
The PSR later included proffer statements and used them to calculate his guideline range.
PSR indicated Jackson furnished a gun used by Meux and involved in other robberies.
The district court increased his offense level, partly based on Meux’s actions and related conduct.
Jackson objected to reliance on proffer information; the court relied on independent evidence and sentenced him to 120 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May proffer information be used to determine guideline range	Jackson argues §1B1.8 bars such use.	Meux conduct can be reasonably foreseeable and independently established.	Guideline range sustained using independent basis; proffer info not essential.
Lawfulness of using FBI agent testimony at sentencing	Jackson objected to relying on agent testimony tied to proffer.	Independent evidence supports enhancement; no error.	Agency testimony permissible; no reversible error.
Use of proffer information in PSR and for specific sentence	Proffer information cannot influence PSR or specific sentence.	No error given the information used was otherwise supported.	District court's sentence affirmed; no plain error found.

United States v. Miller, 910 F.2d 1321 (6th Cir. 1990) (proffer information and §1B1.8 limitations on use in guideline range)
United States v. Hover, 293 F.3d 930 (6th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for guidelines)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (plain error review post-2d en banc)
United States v. Choice, 201 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 2000) (plain meaning governs statutory interpretation of guidelines)
United States v. Cole, 418 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2005) (statutory interpretation can rely on canons of construction)