UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-cr-6-RLM

)

DOUGLAS D. JACKSON )

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Douglas Jackson drove a fifteen-year-old girl from South Bend, Indiana

to Atlanta, Louisville and Grand Rapids with the understanding that she would

perform sexual services for money. Mr. Jackson placed internet advertisements

for her services upon arriving in those cities, and provided her with a cell

phone and a place in which to conduct her business. Mr. Jackson and the girl

split the money evenly. They were caught on their trip to Grand Rapids, and

Mr. Jackson had a gun in the car. The jury convicted Mr. Jackson of three

counts of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity,

18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), three counts of sex trafficking of a minor, 18 U.S.C. §

1591(a) & (b)(2), and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of

violence (count 7), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The court denied Mr. Jackson’s motion

for judgment of acquittal on the firearm count in a separate order. 

Mr. Jackson objected to the following paragraphs of the presentence

report: 

• ¶¶ 5-8 and 13-17 (which set out the facts of the case), 

• ¶ 18 (which summarizes the proposed guideline calculation), 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 1 of 15
• ¶¶ 11, 20, 30 and 68 (which propose an enhancement for

obstruction of justice), 

• ¶¶ 16 and 25 (which propose an enhancement for

misrepresentation of identity), 

• ¶ 26 (which proposes an enhancement for use of a computer), 

• ¶ 27 (which proposes an enhancement for a commercial sex act),

• ¶¶ 17 and 29 (which recommend a role-in-the-offense

enhancement), 

• ¶¶ 35, 67 and 77 (which recommend a five-year guideline range,

identify the mandatory minimum for the firearm count, and report

a mandatory special assessment on the firearm count), and 

• ¶102 (which proposes a supervised release condition allowing the

probation officer access to all of the defendant’s electronic devices

that allow internet access). 

The government had no objection to the presentence report, though its

sentencing memorandum indicates a belief that Mr. Jackson’s objections to

one proposed enhancement and a proposed condition of supervision might be

right. 

The court adopts as its own findings ¶¶ 1-4, 9-10, 12, 18-19, 21-24, 28,

31-34, 36-66, 68-76, and 78-86 of the presentence report, specifically

including ¶¶ 49-65 concerning Mr. Jackson’s financial condition and earning

ability. The court applies the 2015 version of the sentencing guidelines. 

2

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 2 of 15
Several of Mr. Jackson’s objections were grounded in his motion for

judgment of acquittal on count 7. Because the court has overruled that motion,

it also overrules those objections, which were to ¶¶ 35, 67 and 77 of the

presentence report. Several other objections went to the facts of the case;

consistent with his claim of innocence, Mr. Jackson objects to those. Evidence

presented at trial and at the sentencing hearing supports all but a small

portion of the factual items to which Mr. Jackson objects, and persuades the

court that those facts are more likely true than not. The court overrules Mr.

Jackson’s objections to, and adopts as its own findings, ¶¶ 5-8 and 15 -17 of

the presentence report, with these exceptions:

• the court declines to adopt the last 3 sentences in ¶ 5; 

• the court declines to adopt the words, “being a prostitute” in ¶ 6; 

• the court replaces the last period in ¶ 8 with “in Atlanta, Louisville,

and Grand Rapids.”

• in ¶ 13, the court substitutes “May 19,” for “April” and “June 14"

for “June.”

The court agrees with Mr. Jackson that the condition of supervision

proposed in ¶ 102 of the presentence report is inappropriate for him, and so is

unreasonable. Although this case involves sex crimes and a child, Mr. Jackson

has no known connection to child pornography. This record provides no basis

to require Mr. Jackson to submit to inspection of all internet-capable electronic

devices. The court sustains Mr. Jackson’s objection to ¶ 102 of the presentence

3

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 3 of 15
report. The court also withdraws the condition of supervision recommended in

¶ 91 of the report. 

A. The Sentencing Guidelines

A sentencing court must first compute the guidelines sentence correctly,

then decide whether the guidelines sentence is the correct sentence for that

defendant. United States v. Garcia, 754 F.3d 460, 483 (7th Cir. 2014). The

court applies the 2015 version of the sentencing guidelines.

Because counts 1 through 6 all involve a common scheme or plan, they

are grouped and treated as a single offense for purposes of calculating the

advisory sentencing guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(b). The base offense level

for transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity is 30.

U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(a)(2). 

1. Persuasion or Influence

The sentencing guidelines require a 2-level enhancement if the defendant

knowing misrepresented his identity to persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or

facilitate the travel of, the minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct,

U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(A), or otherwise influenced a minor to engage in

prohibited sexual conduct, U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B). The presentence report

recommends that this enhancement be applied because Mr. Jackson

misrepresented his age: the minor testified Mr. Jackson told her that he was 17

4

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 4 of 15
years old, when he actually was 26. Mr. Jackson objects, denying that he

misrepresented his age. While the girl’s testimony generally was credible and

persuasive, it was less so on this point. But even if Mr. Jackson

misrepresented his age, the enhancement requires more: the misrepresentation

must have persuaded, induced, enticed, coerced, or facilitated the girl’s travel

with Mr. Jackson. No evidence in the record indicates that his

misrepresentation of his age had anything to do with her going with Mr.

Jackson to engage in commercial sexual activity in a variety of cities. She didn’t

travel for commercial sex because she thought Mr. Jackson was only 17. 

The government notes that U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) requires only that

Mr. Jackson unduly influenced the minor to engage in the illicit travel, and

notes further that Note 3(B) to that guideline allows an inference of undue

influence when (as here) the defendant was at least 10 years older than the

minor. With the benefit of the minor’s trial testimony, the court declines to

draw that inference. 

The court sustains Mr. Jackson’s objection to ¶¶ 16 and 25 of the

presentence report. His offense level remains at 30. 

2. Use of a Computer

The sentencing guidelines require a 2-level enhancement if a defendant

used a computer or an interactive computer service to entice, encourage, offer,

or solicit a person to engage in prohibited sexual conduct with the minor.

5

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 5 of 15
U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(3). The government and the presentence report contend

this enhancement is required, and Mr. Jackson objects. The objection goes to

the underlying facts of the case. The minor testified at trial that when she and

Mr. Jackson arrived in a city, Mr. Jackson would post an advertisement on

backpage.com for that area (which men looking for commercial sex apparently

use), listing the number of the cellphone he had given the girl. The record

contains no reference to anything else that might have attracted customers.

Mr. Jackson testified at trial that it was the girl, not him, who posted the

backpage.com ads, and that she did so without his knowledge. The jury

believed the girl, and so does the court. 

Mr. Jackson used a cell phone and an interactive computer service to

entice or solicit people to engage in prohibited sexual conduct with the 15-yearold girl that he transported to Atlanta, Louisville, and Grand Rapids, as well as

Chicago, Memphis, Indianapolis and Fort Wayne. The court overrules his

objection to ¶ 26 of the presentence report. His offense level is increased by 2

levels, U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(3), to level 32. 

3. Commercial Sex Act

The presentence report and the government recommend the 2-level

enhancement the guidelines require if the offense involved the commission of a

sex act or sexual contact. U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(4). Mr. Jackson objects,

asserting that he didn’t know the girl was engaging in sex acts. Again, the jury

6

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 6 of 15
believed the girl’s testimony, as does the court. Sex acts were a primary

purpose of these trips, and the only purpose for putting out the backpage.com

advertisements. 

Mr. Jackson also argues that adding 2 levels for commercial sex to a

base offense level for a crime involving commercial sex amounts to

impermissible double counting. The court disagrees. Section 2G1.3 provides

guideline calculations for several offenses, not all of which require that

commercial sex acts actually take place. Those crimes are differentiated by this

enhancement. 

The court overrules Mr. Jackson’s objection to ¶ 27 of the presentence

report. His offense level is increased by 2 levels, U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(4), to level

34.

4. Role in Offense

The guidelines require a 2-level enhancement for a defendant who

managed or supervised another criminal participant. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b).

Pointing to Mr. Jackson’s relationship with the minor, the government and

presentence report contend that this enhancement is required; Mr. Jackson

objects. Consistent with his claim that he didn’t know what the girl was doing

on their trips, Mr. Jackson says he played no supervisory role. 

The child testified, credibly and persuasively, that Mr. Jackson arranged

for her to have and go with customers for her sexual services. Mr. Jackson paid

7

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 7 of 15
all the expenses of the trips. In doing these things, he managed the activity.

Texts from the phone disclose Mr. Jackson telling the girl how long she should

be with a customer and when to leave him. In doing so, he managed the

activity. 

Mr. Jackson managed the criminal activity and supervised the girl during

its commission. The court overrules Mr. Jackson’s objection to ¶¶ 17 and 29

the presentence report, and increases his offense level by 2 levels, U.S.S.G. §

3B1.1(c), to level 36. 

5. Obstruction of Justice

Contending that Mr. Jackson lied in his trial testimony, the government

and the presentence report recommend the 2-level enhancement required when

a defendant attempted to obstruct justice. Contending that his trial testimony

was truthful, Mr. Jackson objects. 

Courts should proceed cautiously when dealing with a claim of trial

perjury, lest a defendant’s guideline range be increased simply because he

exercised his constitutional right to testify on his own behalf and lost.

Nonetheless, Mr. Jackson knowingly testified falsely on several material points.

• He testified that the purpose of the trips was to see family and

friends — and the court believes that this was one of the purposes

of the trips — but denied that the trips were to allow the girl to

engage in commercial sexual conduct. As the court found earlier,

8

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 8 of 15
the commercial sexual conduct was a principal reason for the

travel. That issue wasn’t simply “material” — it was the central

issue with respect to each of the seven counts. 

• Mr. Jackson denied that he had placed any backpage.com ads, and

insisted that the girl must have placed them. Memories fade in

some circumstances, but this isn’t such a circumstance. The ads

aren’t easily described in words, but placing such an ad wouldn’t

be something easily forgotten. The girl testified truthfully that Mr.

Jackson placed the ads. The court believes her testimony. Mr.

Jackson knew his testimony on this fact was false, and this fact

was material to Mr. Jackson’s guilt. 

• Mr. Jackson testified that he knew the girl was providing “escort

services,” but denied knowing that sex was involved. That

testimony strains credulity, especially given the backpage.com ads.

That testimony was false, Mr. Jackson knew it was false, and it

was material to the sex counts.

Mr. Jackson committed perjury at trial, thus attempting to obstruct

justice within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The court overrules his

objection to ¶¶ 11, 20, and 30 of the presentence report. His offense level is

increased by 2 levels, to level 38. 

6. The Advisory Range

9

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 9 of 15
This is Mr. Jackson’s first criminal conviction of any sort, so the

sentencing guidelines assign him to criminal history category I. For a level

38/category I offender, the guidelines recommend a sentencing range of 235 to

293 months. Count 7 requires an additional 60-month sentence, producing an

effective recommended range of 295 months (24 years, 8 months) to 353 (29

years, 5 months) months in prison. 

B. Statutory Factors

The court decides the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Accordingly, the court turns to the statutory

factors, seeking a reasonable sentence: one sufficient, but not greater than

necessary, to satisfy the purposes of the sentencing statute. 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a). 

The guideline range is the starting point and the initial benchmark, but

the court doesn’t presume that the recommended range is reasonable. Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). As just calculated, the sentencing

guidelines, which ordinarily pose the best hope, on a national basis, for

avoiding unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar

records who have been found guilty of similar conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6);

United States v. Boscarino, 437 F.3d 634, 638 (7th Cir. 2006), recommend a

combined sentencing range of 295 to 353 months. The government

10

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 10 of 15
recommends a 300-month sentence. The defense recommends a sentence of

180 months, the shortest sentence allowed for these crimes. 

It’s an inelegant way of putting it, but Mr. Jackson pimped out a 15-

year-old girl several times in several places, taking her all over the midwest to

find customers: Atlanta, Louisville, Grand Rapids, Chicago, Memphis,

Indianapolis and Fort Wayne. On at least one occasion, he brought a firearm

along. Mr. Jackson found a successful way to find customers quickly. He took

half the money she made. He lied about it to the jury trying to presume his

innocence. He used no force upon, and made no threats to, the child. 

Mr. Jackson is 27 years old. His presentence report, and the letters

written by those close to him, don’t depict a person one would expect to see

facing a sentence of 20 to 30 years. Mr. Jackson has no prior criminal

convictions, though he faces a misdemeanor case charging him with operating

with a controlled substance in his body and possession of marijuana. 

Mr. Jackson was an honors student in high school, went to college to

play basketball, and was near graduation from college when he was arrested.

His childhood was good. Mr. Jackson is unmarried and has no children. He is

healthy, both mentally and physically, but reports a history of marijuana use

that suggests he might benefit from drug abuse treatment. His employment

record is modest. Mr. Jackson has close family ties, and those close to him

speak very highly of him. 

11

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 11 of 15
Predicting the need to protect the public from Mr. Jackson is very

difficult. It would be easier if it were possible to understand how his criminal

conduct in this case can be squared with the rest of his life. As best the court

can draw all the elements together, based on Mr. Jackson’s education and lack

of prior criminal record, it seems that he poses a lower risk of criminal activity

than most defendants who pass through the federal courts. 

The sentencing guidelines ordinarily are the best measurement of the

need to reflect the crime’s seriousness, to provide just punishment for the

crime, and to deter others from committing the same sort of crimes. The

guidelines might be low with respect to the seriousness of Mr. Jackson’s crimes

because they don’t reflect that he was convicted of three separate trips for him

to arrange for customers to have sex with the girl, or that he engaged in four

other uncharged trips with her, or that the activity lasted for about a month, or

that he provided her with marijuana. On the other hand, the guidelines already

treat this conduct very seriously. Reasonably uniform sentencing practices

generally tend to promote respect for the law. 

C. The Sentence

Mr. Jackson’s requested statutory minimum sentence isn’t enough to

reflect the seriousness of these crimes. Congress has authorized life sentences

for child sex traffickers, and with good reason. Mr. Jackson took advantage of a

child in far too great a hurry to seem an adult, but in the final analysis, she

12

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 12 of 15
was a 15-year-old being offered to strangers for sex. There will be substantial

emotional damage. The government’s requested aggregate 300-month sentence,

while closer to the mark, is too great to be reasonable in light of the rest of the

life Mr. Jackson has lived. The court recognizes the government’s thought that

a sentence above the low end of what the guidelines recommend is needed to

reflect that Mr. Jackson took the girl on many trips, but the court weighs the

rest of Mr. Jackson’s life differently. 

Review of the factors specifically set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

persuades the court that in light of the need for the sentence to reflect the

seriousness of the offense and to provide just punishment and to promote

respect for the law, the defendant’s history and characteristics, and the range

recommended by the guidelines, concurrent sentences of 235 months on

counts 1-6, followed by a consecutive 60-month sentence on count 7, for an

aggregate 295-month sentence, is sufficient but not greater than necessary to

satisfy the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Mr. Jackson committed terrible crimes, but nothing in this record

suggests that either he or society will benefit from years of supervision of Mr.

Jackson after he spends the next 20 plus years in prison. The court imposes

no supervised release.

Mr. Jackson can’t pay the fines recommended by the guidelines even if

afforded the most generous of installment payment schedules, so the court

13

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 13 of 15
imposes no fine. A special assessment of $700.00 is mandatory. 18 U.S.C. §

3013. 

Accordingly, it is the judgment of the court that the defendant, Douglas

Davalos Jackson, Jr. is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of

Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 235 months on each of counts 1 through

6, with those terms to be served concurrently, and a 60-month sentence on

count 7, with that term to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed on

counts 1 through 6, for an aggregate term of imprisonment of 295 months.

Because the defendant is not able and, even with the use of a reasonable

installment schedule, is not likely to become able to pay all or part of the fine

recommended by the sentencing guidelines, the court imposes no fine. 

The defendant shall pay to the United States a special assessment of

$700.00, which shall be due immediately.

The court recommends that the Bureau of Prisons designate as the place

of the defendant’s confinement a facility, consistent with the defendant’s

security classification as determined by the Bureau of Prisons, as close as

reasonably possible to his family in South Bend, Indiana, and where he can

participate in a substance abuse treatment program.

ENTERED: December 3, 2015 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge

United States District Court

14

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 14 of 15
cc: D. Jackson 

M. Soliday

J. Maciejczyk

USM

USPO

15

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00006-RLM-CAN document 81 filed 12/03/15 page 15 of 15