Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-02689/USCOURTS-ca3-14-02689-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Concetta Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

AMENDED ALD-090 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-2689

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CONCETTA JACKSON,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 2:07-cr-00040-002)

District Judge: Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 23, 2015

Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 27, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Concetta Jackson seeks this Court’s review of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s denial of her second motion to 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-2689 Document: 003111890144 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2015
2

withdraw her guilty plea and obtain a court-appointed attorney. Because Jackson’s 

appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s 

order. 

I.

 In September 2008, Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of using a minor to 

produce visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct. In her plea agreement, she waived 

her right to appeal or collaterally challenge her conviction or sentence. She was 

subsequently sentenced to 300 months. Despite her waiver, she filed a direct appeal, a 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and an application for permission to file a second or successive § 

2255 motion. All were unsuccessful.

Then, in August 2013, Jackson filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea and 

obtain a court-appointed attorney, which the District Court denied. Upon Jackson’s 

appeal, we summarily affirmed the District Court’s decision. See United States v. 

Jackson, 549 F. App’x 61, 62 (3d Cir. 2014) (per curiam). 

In April 2014, Jackson filed a second motion to withdraw her guilty plea and 

obtain a court-appointed attorney. She also requested an evidentiary hearing. Jackson’s 

2014 motion, while lengthier than her 2013 motion, set forth the same grounds for 

withdrawing her guilty plea that she advanced in her 2013 motion. The District Court 

denied the new motion in an April 15, 2014 order, relying on the same reasons that it 

gave in its order denying her 2013 motion. Jackson then filed a timely notice of appeal 

Case: 14-2689 Document: 003111890144 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2015
3

and a response to the Clerk’s notice that her appeal was subject to possible summary 

action.1

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and will summarily affirm the 

District Court’s order if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See 3d 

Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

We find no error in the District Court’s decision to deny Jackson’s latest motion. 

The District Court noted that Jackson had already challenged her conviction and sentence 

with a direct appeal and a § 2255 motion, and correctly concluded that she may no longer 

file a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e). We upheld the 

District Court’s earlier denial on this basis, and we see no reason to take a different 

approach here. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d 

Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

 

1

Jackson also filed a document apparently requesting that we reverse the “no-contact 

with her children” provision of her sentence, which she states is unconstitutional. We 

have already issued an opinion agreeing with the District Court that “Jackson waived any 

challenge to her sentence and that her challenge [to the no-contact provision] is 

meritless.” See United States v. Jackson, 549 F. App’x 117, 118 (3d Cir. 2014) (per 

curiam). We decline to revisit Jackson’s arguments on this issue.

Case: 14-2689 Document: 003111890144 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2015