United States v. Keith Jackson
711 F. App'x 90
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Keith Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin after being charged with others in a multi-defendant drug operation.
- Presentence report identified three prior offenses; two Camden County convictions (2001) were stipulated in the plea agreement as "Possession of CDS with Intent to Distribute" and "Possess, Distribute, Manufacture CDS," each carrying three-year sentences.
- The District Court classified Jackson as a Career Offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior adult felony controlled-substance convictions, raising his Guidelines from 70–87 months (level 23, CH IV) to 151–188 months (level 29, CH VI).
- The court relied on plea and sentencing transcripts to determine both prior convictions were under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-5(a)(1) and (b)(3), which matches the Guidelines’ definition of a "controlled substance offense."
- Jackson argued the New Jersey convictions should not count (citing Chang-Cruz), and alternatively asked for a downward departure or variance; he also raised factual characterizations of one conviction as mere sharing.
- The District Court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 151 months (the low end of the Career Offender range); the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson's prior NJ convictions qualify as Career Offender predicates under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 | Jackson: Prior convictions do not match the federal generic elements (relies on Chang-Cruz immigration decision) | Government/District Court: Both convictions were under N.J. § 2C:35-5(a)(1)/(b)(3), which fits the Guidelines’ definition of a controlled-substance offense | Held: Both prior convictions qualify; Career Offender classification proper |
| Whether the categorical approach was applied correctly to the state statutes | Jackson: Particular facts (e.g., "sharing with friends") mean the convictions shouldn’t qualify | Government: Categorical approach governs; statute’s elements control, not underlying facts | Held: Court properly used the categorical approach; specifics of conduct irrelevant |
| Whether Chang-Cruz supports excluding the NJ convictions as predicates | Jackson: Chang-Cruz shows certain NJ offenses aren't generic federal offenses | Government: Chang-Cruz is an immigration case about a different statute and federal comparator; dispensing is covered by the Guideline's disjunctive list | Held: Chang-Cruz is inapposite; reliance on it is misplaced |
| Whether the sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable or whether refusal to depart is reviewable | Jackson: District Court should have departed/varied on policy grounds or misapplied 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Government: District Court acted within discretion; no preserved procedural error; within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable; refusal to depart is discretionary and largely unreviewable | Held: No reversible error; appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary refusal to depart; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lee, 704 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2012) (categorical-approach guidance for prior convictions)
- United States v. Stinson, 592 F.3d 460 (3d Cir. 2010) (statute-of-conviction element inquiry for predicate offenses)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 855 F.3d 526 (3d Cir. 2017) (discretionary refusal to depart generally unreviewable)
- United States v. Pridgeon, 853 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2017) (discussion of Guidelines promulgation under congressional directive)
- United States v. Freeman, 763 F.3d 322 (3d Cir. 2014) (within-Guidelines sentence gives presumption of substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard for deciding whether no reasonable court would impose the same sentence)
- United States v. Stevens, 223 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2000) (district court’s understanding of law affects appellate jurisdiction on departures)