United States v. Antoine Jackson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 20, 2022
Docket22-1191
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Antoine Jackson (United States v. Antoine Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Antoine Jackson, (8th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-1191 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Antoine D. Jackson

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________

Submitted: September 19, 2022 Filed: October 20, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, MELLOY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Antoine Jackson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court 1 determined that Jackson’s offense had a five-year statutory minimum sentence and that Jackson

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. could not be sentenced below that minimum under the safety-valve provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) because he failed to satisfy certain conditions. The district court sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. Jackson appeals, claiming that the district court erred in finding him ineligible for § 3553(f) sentencing. He argues that the three conditions in § 3553(f)(1), which are connected by “and,” should be read conjunctively rather than disjunctively. On Jackson’s reading, he remains eligible for the safety valve unless he fails all three conditions.

Our recent decision in United States v. Pulsifer forecloses Jackson’s argument. See 39 F.4th 1018, 1021-22 (8th Cir. 2022). We held that the “and” between §§ 3553(f)(1)(B) and (C) is used conjunctively but in a distributive sense rather than a joint sense. Id. The distributive reading means that failing any one of §§ 3553(f)(1)(A)-(C) bars eligibility. Id. at 1022. Because Jackson had “a prior 3- point offense,” see § 3553(f)(1)(B), he was ineligible for sentencing under § 3553(f). We therefore affirm Jackson’s sentence. ______________________________

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Mark Pulsifer
39 F.4th 1018 (Eighth Circuit, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Antoine Jackson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-antoine-jackson-ca8-2022.