Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04306/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04306-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joretta Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4306

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JORETTA JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:18-cr-00078-MGL-2)

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: March 9, 2020

Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, T. Dewayne Pearson, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4306 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/09/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Joretta Jackson with corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede 

the due administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) 

(2018), by attempting to pass two fraudulent checks to discharge her tax liability. On 

appeal, Jackson contends that insufficient evidence supports her convictions and, thus, the 

district court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

“We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo.” United States 

v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 219 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 238 (2018). In assessing 

the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether there is substantial evidence to 

support the conviction when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government. Id. 

“Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate 

and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 931 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2019) (brackets and 

internal quotation marks omitted). In making this determination, we may not resolve 

conflicts in the evidence or evaluate witness credibility. Savage, 885 F.3d at 219. “A 

defendant who brings a sufficiency challenge bears a heavy burden, as appellate reversal 

on grounds of insufficient evidence is confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is 

clear.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Supreme Court recently clarified what the Government must prove to establish 

a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) in Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101 (2018). 

The Court held that the obstructive conduct must relate “to specific interference with 

targeted governmental tax-related proceedings, such as a particular investigation or audit.” 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4306 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/09/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

Id. at 1104. Thus, in order “to secure a conviction . . . the Government must show (among 

other things) that there is a nexus between the defendant’s conduct and a particular 

administrative proceeding, such as an investigation, an audit, or other targeted 

administrative action. That nexus requires a relationship in time, causation, or logic with 

the [administrative] proceeding.” Id. at 1109 (internal quotation marks omitted). The 

Court cautioned that “routine, day-to-day work carried out in the ordinary course by the 

IRS, such as the review of tax returns,” does not count as an administrative proceeding. Id.

at 1110. “In addition to satisfying this nexus requirement, the Government must show that 

the proceeding was pending at the time the defendant engaged in the obstructive conduct 

or, at the least, was then reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.” Id.

We conclude that sufficient evidence supports Jackson’s conviction. Here, the IRS 

was not simply reviewing Jackson’s tax returns. Instead, it conducted a years-long 

investigation in an attempt to ascertain the exact amount Jackson owed after she filed 

fraudulent tax returns for 2006 and 2007. Additionally, there was regular communication 

between Jackson and the IRS leading up to Jackson’s attempt to discharge her tax liability

through the use of fraudulent checks. Although the IRS informed Jackson in a July 2014 

letter that her case was closed, it also warned Jackson that the IRS could reinitiate 

proceedings if it determined that Jackson could pay the debt. Moreover, Jackson knew that 

there was a particular proceeding pending, as evidenced by her actions to prevent a lien 

from being placed on her assets months before she passed the fraudulent checks. And even 

if she was unaware specifically there was an investigation, the evidence was sufficient to

allow the jury to conclude that an investigation was reasonably foreseeable. See United 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4306 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/09/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

States v. Miner, 774 F.3d 336, 346 (6th Cir. 2014) (“Once the defendant knows that the 

IRS’s interest in a given taxpayer (...) has been piqued in a manner that is out of the 

ordinary, any attempt to corruptly impede the IRS’s inquiries into the taxpayer after that 

point is potentially criminal.”). Moreover, the checks had a direct nexus to the 

investigation, as Jackson attempted to pass them to discharge her tax liability.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4306 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/09/2020 Pg: 4 of 4