Opinion ID: 2792884
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jackson’s Guilty Plea and Sentence

Text: Jackson pleaded guilty to counts one, two, and three pursuant to a written plea agreement. The government agreed to recommend a sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment. The plea agreement stated that the district court “alone will determine whether to accept the [government’s] recommendation.” As set forth more fully below, the district court explained to Jackson during the change-of-plea hearing that it was not required to impose the recommended sentence and that Jackson could not withdraw his guilty plea if the recommended sentence was not imposed. Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines), Jackson’s final sentencing range was 480 months’ imprisonment to life.2 Jackson requested a 240month sentence. The government recommended a 360-month sentence. After considering the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court imposed a sentence of 400 months’ imprisonment: a 280-month sentence on count one, a concurrent 240-month sentence on count two, and a consecutive 120-month sentence on count three.
Jackson argues that the district court failed to adequately advise him that he could not withdraw his plea if the court decided to impose a sentence lengthier than the one recommended by the government. Jackson entered a guilty plea pursuant to 2 Jackson’s total offense level for counts one and two was 40, his criminal history category was III, and his sentencing range was 360 months’ to life imprisonment. Count three—possession, brandishing, and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime—carried a mandatory, consecutive sentence of at least ten years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Jackson admitted in his plea agreement and at his change-of-plea hearing that he had discharged a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. -7- Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 11(c)(3)(B) required the district court to advise Jackson that he “ha[d] no right to withdraw the plea if the court d[id] not follow the [government’s sentencing] recommendation.” At the change-of-plea hearing, the district court explained to Jackson that it did not have to impose the recommended sentence. It confirmed that Jackson understood “that the decision whether or not to accept that recommendation at sentencing would be totally up to [the court].” The district court reiterated that “the mere fact that the parties are recommending that doesn’t mean I’m going to go along with it.” Moreover, the district court explained that the Guidelines were advisory, that the court was free to sentence Jackson above or below the Guidelines range, and that Jackson might be considered an armed career criminal, which would mean a higher total offense level and a higher criminal history category. Finally, the district court explained: Court: Now, do you understand, sir, that I don’t have to follow any of the guidelines recommendations contained in this plea agreement? Jackson: Yes. Court: And do you understand, sir, that if I do not [follow] the guideline agreements contained in this document, you’re still going to be stuck with your plea and you’re not going to be able to withdraw your plea just because I didn’t follow the recommendations contained in this plea agreement? Jackson: Yes, ma’am. The district court’s advice to Jackson that he could not withdraw his guilty plea even if the court did not impose the sentence that the government recommended fulfilled its Rule 11(c)(3)(B) obligations. -8-
Jackson argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to take into account the government’s recommended sentence and the substantial assistance Jackson had provided. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight . . . .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The transcript makes clear that the district court considered those factors when it decided to sentence Jackson below the Guidelines range. In evaluating the totality of the circumstances, however, the district court decided that the 360-month sentence recommended by the government was too lenient. [W]hile I am willing to depart downward to give effect to the Government’s agreement, I continue to struggle with the fact that at the time of the defendant’s plea, I observed a level of acceptance of responsibility that I have not seen since. And I think that there are still significant issues . . . with respect to Mr. Jackson’s acceptance of responsibility here, and realizing the impact of these actions, the [e]ffect it has had on people’s lives and I frankly do not see remorse for anyone other than Mr. Jackson. We hold that Jackson’s 400-month sentence is not substantively unreasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing it.