United States v. Quinton Jackson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 14, 2019
• Docket: 17-56149
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 14 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-56149

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01545-DMS 3:08-cr-04324-DMS-2 v.

QUINTON OMAR JACKSON, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 6, 2019 Pasadena, California

Before: GOULD and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY,** District Judge.

Defendant Quinton Omar Jackson appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion challenging his sentence on one count of using or carrying a firearm during

a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We have jurisdiction under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing the denial of a § 2255 motion de novo, United States v.

Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm. Even assuming that

Jackson’s appeal is not barred by the appellate waiver in his plea agreement, his

argument that his underlying conviction for robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2111 is not

a crime of violence is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Fultz, 923

F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2111 is a

‘crime of violence’ under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A).”).

AFFIRMED.