Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03643/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03643-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3643

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Andre Jackson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 7, 2005

Filed: July 14, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andre Jackson appeals the 240-month statutory minimum sentence that the

district court1

 imposed after his plea of guilty to possessing with intent to distribute

50 grams or more of a cocaine-base mixture after a prior conviction for a felony drug

offense. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 851. Jackson argues that the district

court erred by assessing one criminal history point each for two prior dispositions of

court supervision in Cook County, Illinois, thereby making him ineligible for “safetyvalve” relief from the mandatory minimum, see U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(1) (defendant

Appellate Case: 04-3643 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2005 Entry ID: 1928067
-2-

must have no more than 1 criminal history point). He further argues, citing United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), that the district court improperly relied upon

the then-mandatory guidelines to determine whether the prior dispositions should be

assessed criminal history points.

The district court did not err in assigning criminal history points for the

disputed dispositions, as each was analogous to a diversionary disposition following

a plea or finding of guilt. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.2(a)(1) (“prior sentence” means any

sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt), 4A1.2(f) (diversion from

judicial process without finding of guilt is not counted; diversionary disposition

resulting from finding or admission of guilt in judicial proceeding is counted as

sentence under § 4A1.1(c) even if conviction is not formally entered); 730 Ill. Comp.

Stat. Ann. 5/5-6-1(c) (West 2002) (court may defer further proceedings and

imposition of sentence and order supervision upon guilty plea, stipulation to facts

supporting charge, or finding of guilt); United States v. Morgan, 390 F.3d 1072, 1074

(8th Cir. 2004) (federal law, not state law, determines whether prior sentence is

counted for criminal history purposes); United States v. Holland, 195 F.3d 415, 416

(8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review); United States v. Burke, 148 F.3d 832, 839-40

(7th Cir. 1998) (dismissal of case after successful completion of court supervision

under Illinois law is not due to innocence, but for purposes of removing stigma

associated with criminal conviction and restoring civil rights; defendant is no less

guilty of offense after completing court supervision than he was when found guilty,

whether or not Illinois still considers him a misdemeanant).

Jackson did not preserve his Booker claim in the district court, and we find no

plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc)

(requirements for preserving Booker error; plain-error standard of review); United

States v. Rojas-Coria, 401 F.3d 871, 873-74 & n.4 (8th Cir. 2005) (where defendant

challenged district court’s finding as to completeness of safety-valve proffer, Booker

had no impact because defendant’s sentence was based on statutory mandatory

Appellate Case: 04-3643 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2005 Entry ID: 1928067
-3-

minimum, not application of guidelines); cf. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756 (proscribing

only judicial factfinding that increases sentence beyond maximum authorized by jury

verdict or admission); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 243-44

(1998) (prior criminal history is sentencing factor for court to decide, not fact issue

for jury to decide).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3643 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2005 Entry ID: 1928067