Victor Jackson v. United States, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10697

In 2011 Victor Jackson was convicted of cocaine offenses, sentenced to 360 months, and on appeal was remanded for resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA); he was resentenced to 200 months.
Jackson filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), including that counsel misinformed him he could not preserve an FSA claim if he pleaded guilty.
The court granted a certificate of appealability on the specific IAC claim about plea advice; the parties agreed to remand for an evidentiary hearing, which a magistrate judge held and at which Jackson, co‑defendant Kelly, and counsel Bruce Ratcliffe testified live.
The magistrate judge credited Jackson’s testimony that Ratcliffe told him he had to go to trial to preserve an FSA claim, found counsel’s performance deficient and prejudicial, and recommended vacatur and resentencing with an acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction.
The district court rejected the magistrate judge’s credibility findings (without observing live testimony itself), agreed counsel’s performance was deficient but found no Strickland prejudice, and denied relief; it issued a certificate of appealability on the credibility dispute.
The Seventh Circuit held the district court erred by rejecting material credibility findings based on live testimony without conducting a de novo evidentiary hearing, vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Jackson's Argument	Government/District Court Argument	Held
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising Jackson he could not preserve an FSA claim if he pleaded guilty	Ratcliffe told Jackson he had to go to trial to preserve an FSA claim; Jackson relied on that advice and would have pled guilty otherwise	District court accepted counsel was deficient but held Jackson failed to prove Strickland prejudice	Magistrate judge credited Jackson and found prejudice; Seventh Circuit did not resolve Strickland prejudice on merits here because of procedural error in rejecting credibility findings
Whether the district court may reject a magistrate judge’s material credibility findings (based on live testimony) without holding a de novo evidentiary hearing	Jackson: district court must hold a de novo hearing before overruling live-witness credibility findings	District court: may review record and reject magistrate findings without seeing witnesses again	Seventh Circuit: district court may not reject material credibility findings based on live testimony without first conducting a de novo evidentiary hearing; failure to do so was reversible error

Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (Supreme Court decision informing application of the Fair Sentencing Act)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (statutory scheme for magistrate referrals; noted caution about rejecting magistrate credibility findings without hearing witnesses)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process balancing test relied on to assess hearing adequacy)
United States v. Ornelas‑Ledesma, 16 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 1994) (discussing other circuits’ deference to Raddatz’s caution on credibility reassessment)
Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342 (1941) (observing importance of seeing and hearing witnesses when assessing credibility)