United States v. Darrick Loray Jackson ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 19-10959    Date Filed: 11/15/2019   Page: 1 of 6
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 19-10959
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cr-00016-RAL-TGW-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    DARRICK LORAY JACKSON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (November 15, 2019)
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, GRANT, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 19-10959     Date Filed: 11/15/2019    Page: 2 of 6
    The district court found that Darrick Loray Jackson had violated the terms of
    his supervised release by, among other things, possessing cocaine. The court
    revoked Jackson’s supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months in prison.
    On appeal, Jackson argues that the district court improperly calculated his advisory
    Guidelines sentencing range by classifying his possession offense as a Grade B
    violation based on state law instead of a Grade C violation based on federal law.
    After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
    I.
    Jackson was arrested in Florida for drunk driving, and police later
    discovered a baggie containing a small amount of cocaine in his car. At the time of
    his arrest on the state charges, Jackson was serving a term of supervised release as
    part of his federal sentence for possession with intent to distribute five or more
    grams of crack cocaine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
    At the supervised release revocation hearing, the district court found that
    Jackson had possessed cocaine as alleged in the probation officer’s warrant
    petition, and that his drug possession, a third-degree felony in Florida, constituted a
    Grade B violation of the condition of his supervised release requiring that he not
    commit any further crimes. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 893.13(6)(a); U.S.S.G.
    § 7B1.1(a)(2). Based on Jackson’s criminal history category (VI) and the Grade B
    violation, the district court calculated a Guidelines range of 21–27 months’
    2
    Case: 19-10959     Date Filed: 11/15/2019   Page: 3 of 6
    imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The court varied downward from the
    Guidelines range to a sentence of 18 months, however, based on the parties’
    representations that possession of cocaine for personal use was a misdemeanor—
    and therefore a Grade C violation that would have resulted in a Guidelines range of
    8–14 months—under federal law. See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a)(3), 7B1.4(a).
    II.
    Jackson’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court should have
    considered his possession of cocaine to be a Grade C violation corresponding to a
    misdemeanor offense under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) because federal courts should
    apply federal law by default, and because his actual conduct—possession of a
    small amount of cocaine for personal use—is most appropriately treated as a
    misdemeanor, especially when the state has elected not to prosecute the offense.
    We review the district court’s legal interpretation and application of the Sentencing
    Guidelines de novo. United States v. Cubero, 
    754 F.3d 888
    , 892 (11th Cir. 2014).
    A plain reading of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines policy statement,
    U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(b), runs contrary to Jackson’s argument. That section provides
    that when a violation of supervised release “includes conduct that constitutes more
    than one offense, the grade of the violation is determined by the violation having
    the most serious grade.” So far, our sister circuits have taken the Sentencing
    Commission at its word, interpreting this provision to require that when a
    3
    Case: 19-10959     Date Filed: 11/15/2019    Page: 4 of 6
    defendant’s conduct constitutes both a state offense and a federal one, his
    supervised release violation should be classified according to the law that results in
    the most severe penalty. See United States v. Brennick, 
    337 F.3d 107
    , 110 (1st Cir.
    2003) (per curiam); United States v. Jolibois, 
    294 F.3d 1110
    , 1113 (9th Cir. 2002);
    see also United States v. Draper, 768 F. App’x 828, 832 (10th Cir. 2019)
    (unpublished). But this Court has not yet weighed in on that issue in a published
    opinion, and there is no need to do so here.
    That is because, contrary to the parties’ representations in the district court,
    Jackson’s possession of cocaine was “punishable by a term of imprisonment
    exceeding one year”—and thus constituted a Grade B violation—under either state
    or federal law. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2). As we noted above, possession of cocaine
    is a third-degree felony in Florida, which is punishable by up to five years’
    imprisonment. Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 893.13(6)(a); 775.082(3)(e). Federal law
    provides that simple possession of a controlled substance is punishable by a term
    of imprisonment not to exceed one year, unless the defendant—like Jackson—has
    one or more prior drug convictions, in which case the maximum term of
    imprisonment increases to two years for a defendant with one prior conviction and
    up to three years for a defendant with two prior drug convictions. 21 U.S.C.
    § 844(a).
    4
    Case: 19-10959       Date Filed: 11/15/2019      Page: 5 of 6
    There is no dispute that Jackson had at least one relevant prior drug
    conviction at the time that he violated the conditions of his supervised release by
    possessing cocaine. Indeed, one of the convictions that resulted in his supervised
    release was for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Jackson argues
    that we should not consider § 844(a)’s enhanced penalties because the government
    did not provide notice of its intent to rely on his prior convictions in the district
    court, as it would have been required to do if he were being sentenced as a
    recidivist for a violation of that statute. See 21 U.S.C. § 851(a). But he was
    sentenced for the violation of his conditions of supervised release, not for the drug
    offense itself. And the grade of his violation depended on the maximum penalty
    that could have been imposed by statute if he had been prosecuted for the offense
    conduct, not on whether the government actually took the steps required to
    prosecute him. See United States v. Gardiner, 
    955 F.2d 1492
    , 1498 n.11 (11th Cir.
    1992) (the “use of the word ‘punishable,’ rather than ‘punished,’ mandates that the
    sentencing court must consider the statutory maximum sentence—not the actual
    sentence—for the underlying offense”) (interpreting U.S.S.G. § 2J1.6(b) (1989)).1
    1
    Where “the same language appears in two guidelines, it is generally presumed that the language
    bears the same meaning in both.” United States v. Gordillo, 
    920 F.3d 1292
    , 1299 (11th Cir.
    2019) (citation omitted), cert. denied, No. 19-5434, 
    2019 WL 4923315
    (U.S. Oct. 7, 2019)
    (mem.).
    5
    Case: 19-10959     Date Filed: 11/15/2019    Page: 6 of 6
    Because Jackson had at least one prior conviction for a drug offense, his
    possession of cocaine was conduct “punishable by a term of imprisonment
    exceeding one year” under federal law. Accordingly, although its reasoning was
    slightly different, the district court correctly determined that Jackson’s conduct
    constituted a Grade B violation of his supervised release, and correctly calculated
    his Guidelines range based on that determination. We “can affirm the district
    court’s judgment on any ground supported by the record—even if that ground was
    not considered or advanced in the district court.” United States v. Gill, 
    864 F.3d 1279
    , 1280 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).
    AFFIRMED.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-10959

Filed Date: 11/15/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/15/2019