Case Name: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-20
Citations: 78 F. App'x 635
Docket Number: No. 03-30134; D.C. No. CR-02-00044-SEH
Parties: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terry JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WARDLAW, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 635–636

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terry JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-30134.
D.C. No. CR-02-00044-SEH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2003.
Decided Oct. 20, 2003.
Marcia Good Hurd, USMO—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Donahoe, Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WARDLAW, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Terry Jackson appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846. Jackson contends that the district court erred by denying her a downward departure based on the sentencing disparity between Jackson, who as an Indian could not be charged in state court, and four non-Indian persons who participated in the same drug crime but were prosecuted in state court. Because the record is unclear as to whether the district court believed it had discretion to depart based on the specific ground advanced by Jackson, we cannot determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Compare United States v. Lipman, 133 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir.1998) ("The district court's explanation of its denial sufficiently indicates that the court recognized its authority to consider cultural assimilation as a potential basis for departure and reflects its discretionary decision not to do so in this case based upon the facts presented."). We therefore remand for the district court to address the specific ground for departure advanced by Jackson and to clarify the basis for its denial.
REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.