Court Opinion

ID: 9957649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 19:01:11.411097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:34.344699
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 4 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-474
                                                D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00531-PA-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

DON WILLIAM JACKSON,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Don William Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 60-month sentence imposed upon the fourth revocation of his

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Jackson contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

consider or address his mitigating arguments concerning his personal

circumstances, employment and criminal history, letters of support from family

and friends, and addiction issues. We review for plain error, see United States v.

Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is

none. The record reflects that the district court considered Jackson’s mitigating

arguments and explained that the within-Guidelines sentence was warranted in

light of Jackson’s repeated violations and breaches of the court’s trust, his failure

to take advantage of the support offered to him, his ongoing criminal behavior, and

the danger he poses to himself and the public. Contrary to Jackson’s argument,

this explanation is sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review. See United

States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, Jackson

has not shown a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a

lower sentence had it more explicitly weighed Jackson’s mitigating arguments

against the aggravating circumstances it cited. See United States v. Dallman, 533

F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                     23-474