2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-7-2006 

# Ja ckson v . U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-2044

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J a ck s on v . U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 611. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/611NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o: 03- 2044 VI NC E NT J AC KS ON, A ppel l ant

v. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 00- cv- 00664 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. H ar ol d A . A ckerm an Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y11, 2006 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , M cK E E & R E N D E L L C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed A ugus t7, 2006) OP I NI ON M cK ee, C i r cui tJ udge V in c e n t Ja c k so n c h a llen g e s th e se n ten c e th e d istric t co u rt im p o se d a f ter p a rtially gr ant i ng t he habe as pet i t i on J acks on had fi l ed under28 U . S. C . § 2255. T he courtvaca t ed J acks on’ s convi ct i on forhi s i nvol vementi n a coc ai ne tr aff i cki ng cons pi r acyi n vi ol at i on o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 , b u t re im p o se d th e se n ten c e o f 3 0 0 m o n th s th a t th e c o u rt h a d in iti a lly2

i m pos ed af

t ert he j ur yconvi ct ed J acks on of drug cons pi r acy( 21 U . S. C . § 846) , oper at i ng a c o n ti n u ing crim inal en terprise (21 U . S . C . § 8 4 8 (c)), an d related o ff en ses. T h e c o u rt gr ant ed a Cer t i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i tyand thi s appea l fol l ow ed. J acks on now ar gues t hat t he courterr ed i n r ei m pos i ng a s ent ence of 300 m ont hs t ot al i m pr i s onm enteven though h i s c o n v i c t i o n f

o rc o c a i n e - t r a f

f i c k i n g h a d b e e n v a c a t e d . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f f i r m. Si nce w e ar e w r i t i ng pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t hi s di s put e, w e n e e d o n lyp ro v id e a b rie f sta tem e n t o f

th e p ro c e d u ra l an d f

a c tu a l b a c k g ro u n d to fac i l i t at e ourdi s cus s i on. J acks on’ s habea s couns el has fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). A nd ers onl yappl i es t o di r ectappea l s , and does notappl yt o col l at er al p ro c e e d in g s s u c h a s th is h a b e a s a p p e a l. S e e U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A ppel l at e couns el has nevert hel es s fol l ow ed the pr ocedur e r equi r ed under A nd ers and now s eeks t o w i t hdr aw bas ed upon hi s det erm i nat i on thatJ acks on has no m eri t ori ou s appell at e i ssue. In hi s A nd ers b rie f , co u n se l sta tes : “J u d g e A c k e rm a n , as w e ll as th is C o u rt , h ea rd A p p ell an t’ s arg u m en ts, g av e the m the c o n side rati o n . . . theyw ere due, and af

t erJ udge A ckerm an r educe d A ppel l ant ’ s s ent ence , . . . concl uded thatthe r emai ni ng r el i ef he s oughtw as w i t houtm er i tand deni ed s ame. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at12. W e agr ee thatt her e ar e no mer i t or i ous i s s ues forappea l . H ow ever , J acks on has fi l ed a pro se br i ef i n w hi ch he a r gues thatthe di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n r ei m pos i ng a3

s ent ence of 300 m ont hs i m pr i s onm enteven though the courtvaca t ed hi s convi ct i on for drug t r aff

i cki ng. T hatcl ai m r equi r es onl ybr i ef di s cus s i on. A s not ed, J acks on w as convi ct ed of e ngagi ng i n a “c ont i nui ng s er i es of vi ol at i ons of “drug t r aff

i cki ng l aw s i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 848( c) ( 2) ( cont i nui ng cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e or“C C E ”) . T he § 846 cons pi r acythathe w as convi ct ed of w as one of the p re d ic a te v io la tio n s re q u ir e d f o r a C C E c o n v ic tio n u n d e r § 8 4 8 . See U ni t ed Stat es v. E dm onds , 8 0 F . 3 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( e n b a n c ) . J a c k s o n wa s a l s o c o n v i c t e d o f t wo co u n ts of v iolati n g 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 , b o th o f w h ich a lso c o n sti tute p red icate o ff en ses f o r a C C E c o n v ic tio n u n d e r 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 8 . See Ri char ds on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 526 U . S. 815 (1 9 9 9 ). A c c o rd in g ly , the f a c t th a t th e c o u rt v a c a ted Ja c k so n ’s c o n v ictio n f o r a se p a ra te cons pi r acyunder§ 846, di d notnegat e the fa ctthatthe j uryunani m ous l yfound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatJ acks on comm i t t ed ea ch of the i ndi vi dual offe ns es compri s i ng t he C C E th a t h e w a s a ls o c o n v ic te d o f. I d. J acks on does notdi s put e thatthe O ffe ns e Level forthe tw o drug- t r aff i cki ng o f f e n s e s h e w a s c o n v ic te d o f w a s 3 9 . H is B a s e O f

f e n s e L e v e l f

o r v io la tin g § 8 4 1 w a s 3 4 . T w o l evel s w er e adde d bas ed upon hi s pos s es s i on of a ha ndgun “i n connec t i on w i t h” the offe ns es he w as convi ct ed of, and thr ee mor e l evel s w er e adde d beca us e he s upervi s ed at l eave fi ve other s . A ft ert he di s t r i ctcour tal l ow ed hi m a tw o poi ntr educt i on forhi s r ather bel at ed ac cept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , the appl i cabl e advi s orys ent enci ng r ange unde rt he G ui del i nes w as 262 t o 327 m ont hs . J acks on does notcl ai m thathi s s ent ence of 3004

m on t hs i s unreasonab l e, and no t hing on this recor d sug gest s that i ti s. A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i t h habea s couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on thatther e ar e no nonfr i vol ous i s s ues forappea l , and the j udgm entof s ent ence w i l l be af fi r m ed.