United States v. Jeffrey Jackson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2543
D.C. Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Jeffrey N. Jackson owned two security companies and twice diverted withheld employee payroll taxes for personal/business use.
- First offense (Unlimited Security): while the company was in bankruptcy Jackson diverted $373,000; he pleaded guilty and received five years’ probation in 2006.
- While on probation for the first offense, Jackson formed Innovative Security Services and willfully failed to pay nearly $600,000 in employment taxes over four years.
- Jackson pleaded guilty to willful failure to pay over employment taxes (26 U.S.C. § 7202); plea agreement calculated a Guidelines range of 27–33 months but preserved the court’s discretion.
- The district court imposed a 42‑month sentence (9 months above the Guidelines top) citing Jackson’s repetition of a similar crime while on probation and the need for deterrence; Jackson did not object at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court insufficiently explained an above‑Guidelines sentence | Jackson: oral explanation and written Statement of Reasons were inadequate under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) | Government: oral explanation made reasons plain; any written form deficiency is administrative and does not invalidate sentence | Court: No plain error — oral explanation sufficient; sentence affirmed |
| Whether the written Statement of Reasons (28 U.S.C. § 994(w)/§ 3553(c)(2)) affects sentence validity | Jackson: the terse form entries rendered the written report deficient and reversible | Government: the § 994(w) form is primarily for Sentencing Commission data collection and does not confer procedural rights | Court: Declined to definitively decide scope of § 994(w) but held any written deficiency did not affect substantial rights because oral explanation sufficed |
| Whether the court improperly relied on general deterrence to justify an excessive sentence | Jackson: remark about deterring others meant punishment greater than necessary under § 3553(a) | Government: deterrence (general and specific) is a legitimate § 3553(a) sentencing factor given the facts | Court: Context showed legitimate deterrence purpose; no error |
| Whether sentence punished Jackson’s prior business success | Jackson: court punished him for having been successful, making sentence unlawful | Government: court’s comments about lost potential were descriptive, not punitive; sentence based on recidivism and deterrence | Court: Description of lost potential did not justify the sentence; decision was reasonable and within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentence and requirement to explain variances)
- United States v. Ransom, 756 F.3d 770 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (upholding above‑Guidelines sentence where defendant offended while on probation for substantially similar crime)
- United States v. Weathers, 631 F.3d 560 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (oral sentence controls over written forms)
- United States v. Booker, 436 F.3d 238 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (written judgment cannot conflict with oral pronouncement)
- United States v. Brown, 808 F.3d 865 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (insufficient oral + written explanations can preclude appellate review)