Case Name: UNITED STATES of America v. Concetta JACKSON, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-09
Citations: 549 F. App'x 117
Docket Number: No. 13-4023
Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Concetta JACKSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 549
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America v. Concetta JACKSON, Appellant.
No. 13-4023.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Dec. 19, 2013.
Filed: Jan. 9, 2014.
Michelle Rotella, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.
Concetta Jackson, Danbury, CT, pro se.
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Concetta Jackson appeals the District Court's order denying her motions to reverse the portion of her sentence that bars her from contacting her children. For the reasons below, we will summarily affirm the District Court's order.
In September 2008, Concetta Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of using a minor to produce visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct. With limited exceptions not relevant here, she waived her right to appeal or challenge her conviction or sentence in her plea agreement. She was subsequently sentenced to 300 months and barred from contacting any victim named in the indictment including her four children. Despite this, she filed a direct appeal, a § 2255 motion, and an application for permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. All were unsuccessful. In February 2012 and August 2013, Jackson filed motions challenging the no-contact provision of her sentence. The District Court denied the motions, and Jackson filed a notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court thoroughly addressed Jackson's motions in its September 6th memorandum. We agree with the District Court that Jackson waived any challenge to her sentence and that her challenge is meritless.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court's order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.