Court Opinion

ID: 9375334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:49.166117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.964767
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10744         Document: 00516653624             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/23/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10744
                                     Summary Calendar
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                               February 23, 2023
                                     ____________
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Deandre Hykeem Jackson,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:22-CR-13-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Deandre Hykeem Jackson pleaded guilty to robbery under the Hobbs
   Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)(1) and was sentenced to 78 months of
   imprisonment. He received a consecutive 84-month sentence for his plea of
   guilty to brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (COV) in
   violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Jackson’s Hobbs Act robbery

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10744      Document: 00516653624          Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/23/2023

                                    No. 22-10744

   conviction was the predicate COV for his § 924(c) conviction. Jackson
   timely appealed, and he now challenges his § 924(c) conviction and sentence.
          The Supreme Court recently held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery
   under § 1951(a) is not a COV for purposes of § 924(c). United States v.
   Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015, 2020 (2022). Citing Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S.
   500 (2016), Jackson contends for the first time on appeal that § 1951(a) is
   “not divisible as between substantive and attempted robberies.” Proceeding
   from the premise that § 1951 is indivisible, he reasons that, because the
   Supreme Court has held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery under § 1951(a)
   cannot form the predicate COV for a § 924(c) conviction, his own Hobbs Act
   robbery under that same statute may not do so. See Mathis, 579 U.S. at 505.
   Jackson argues that, if his interpretation of § 1951(a) is correct, there was an
   inadequate factual basis to support his plea to the § 924(c) offense. We
   review this argument only for plain error. See United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d
   308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010).
          Jackson correctly concedes the error he alleges is not clear or obvious
   under current law and that he therefore cannot prevail under the plain-error
   standard of review. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009);
   United States v. Salinas, 480 F.3d 750, 759 (5th Cir. 2007). He raises the issue
   here to preserve it for further review in the event of an intervening change in
   the law while his case remains on direct appeal.          Based on Jackson’s
   concession, the Government has moved for summary affirmance. That
   motion is DENIED because there is no controlling authority foreclosing
   Jackson’s appeal. See United States v. Houston, 625 F.3d 871, 873 n.2 (5th Cir.
   2010). However, because Jackson cannot show plain error, we dispense with
   further briefing and AFFIRM the judgment of conviction.                    The
   Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is
   DENIED as unnecessary.

                                          2