United States v. Joshua Jarrell Jackson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMay 17, 2018
Docket17-13322
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Joshua Jarrell Jackson (United States v. Joshua Jarrell Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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. Joshua Jarrell Jackson, (11th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

Case: 17-13322 Date Filed: 05/17/2018 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 17-13322 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cr-00335-RDP-TFM-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSHUA JARRELL JACKSON, a.k.a. "Bam" or "Bam Bam",

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ________________________

(May 17, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Case: 17-13322 Date Filed: 05/17/2018 Page: 2 of 2

Joshua Jackson appeals the mandatory statutory minimum sentence of 240

months that he received after entering conditional pleas of guilty to tampering with

a witness, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1512(b)(3), and to conspiring to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. Jackson challenges the enhancement of his sentence based

on his youthful offender adjudication in an Alabama court. Id. § 841(b)(1)(A). We

affirm.

Jackson’s argument is foreclosed by our precedents. We held in United

States v. Elliott, 732 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2013), that “a youthful offender who

pled guilty and was adjudicated must also be considered to have sustained a

conviction for purposes of the Guidelines career offender enhancement, even if

state law does not consider him ‘convicted.’” Id. at 1313. And a state adjudication

that “is considered a ‘conviction’ for purposes of career offender status . . . [is] also

. . . considered a ‘conviction’ for purposes of enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 841.”

United States v. Fernandez, 58 F.3d 593, 599 (11th Cir. 1995). Our prior precedent

rule requires that we follow binding circuit precedent unless and until it is

overruled by this Court en banc or by the Supreme Court. United States v.

Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1187 (11th Cir. 2016).

We AFFIRM Jackson’s sentence.

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

Related

United States v. Omari Elliot
732 F.3d 1307 (Eleventh Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Carlington Cruickshank
837 F.3d 1182 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Joshua Jarrell Jackson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joshua-jarrell-jackson-ca11-2018.