United States v. Jackson

Opinion

Case: 25-40081 Document: 51-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED December 2, 2025 No. 25-40081 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Erik Jackson,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CR-273-1 ______________________________

Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Erik Jackson appeals the 60-month, above-guidelines range sentence imposed upon his guilty plea conviction to possessing a firearm following a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm. Jackson first argues that the district court procedurally erred by imposing an upward guidelines departure without giving the notice required

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40081 Document: 51-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2025

No. 25-40081

under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h). He fails to show error, plain or otherwise, see United States v. Zelaya-Rosales, 707 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2013), because the record makes it clear that the district court imposed an 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)-based variance and not a guidelines-based departure, see United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 780 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 n.3 (5th Cir. 2006); see generally Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708, 714-15 (2008). Therefore, no Rule 32(h) notice was required. See Irizarry, 553 U.S. at 714. Next, Jackson contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. However, he fails to show that his above-guidelines range sentence fails to account for an § 3553(a) sentencing factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we defer to the district court’s determination that the § 3553(a) factors as a whole—including Jackson’s violent criminal history, his spontaneous admission at the sentencing hearing that he had been committing an ongoing § 922(g) violation for 20 years, and his lack of remorse, among other factors—justify the extent of the variance in this case. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED.