United States v. Quentin Jackson ( 2020 )

Case: 19-60881 Document: 00515564608 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-60881 September 15, 2020
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Quentin Jackson, also known as Q,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:18-CR-135-6
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Quentin Jackson appeals the concurrent 57-month prison terms and
concurrent three-year terms of supervised release imposed on his guilty plea
convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
controlled substances (count 1) and for money laundering (count 2). See 21
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60881 Document: 00515564608 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
No. 19-60881
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846; 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (h).
His sole appellate claim is that his concurrent sentences are substantively
unreasonable in view of sentences meted out to three co-defendants, a claim
that we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d
714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015); see also Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140
S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020).
We note initially that our “concern about unwarranted disparities is
at a minimum when a sentence is”—as in the instant case—“within the
Guidelines range.” United States v. Willingham, 497 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir.
2007); see United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). “[The]
disparity factor requires the district court to avoid only unwarranted
disparities between similarly situated defendants nationwide, and it does not
require the district court to avoid sentencing disparities between co-
defendants who might not be similarly situated.” United States v. Guillermo
Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010).
As Jackson acknowledges, Jacquelin Jackson was sentenced to
probation on her count 11 conviction. She was not, therefore, “found guilty
of . . . conduct” similar to his own, as he was not convicted on count 11.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); see United States v. Cedillo-Narvaez, 761 F.3d 397,
406 (5th Cir. 2014). Jackson’s argument on this point has no basis in fact or
law and is therefore frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967).
Jackson additionally calls our attention to the sentences imposed on
Anissa Lindsey and Willie Beard. Lindsey was sentenced to one day (time
served) on count 1, and Beard was sentenced to 18 months on count 1.
Neither Lindsey nor Beard received a concurrent sentence on count 2.
Jackson’s contentions of unwarranted disparities are wholly conclusory and
2
Case: 19-60881 Document: 00515564608 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
No. 19-60881
unsupported. Jackson fails to demonstrate that he, Lindsey, and Beard are
similarly situated. See Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d at 435.
Jackson has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
imposing his presumptively reasonable concurrent sentences. See Diehl, 775
F.3d at 724; Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. Consequently, we do not disturb the
district court’s choice of sentences.
AFFIRMED.
3