United States v. Jackson

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 25 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-6342
(D.C. No. CR-98-192-T)
CARLTON KEITH JACKSON, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , Chief Judge, BALDOCK , Circuit Judge, and BRORBY Senior
Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Defendant Carlton Keith Jackson appeals from the district court’s
imposition of sentence following his guilty plea to one count of distribution of
cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.
Defendant was sentenced to 226 months in prison, reflecting nine months’
credit for time served on a concurrent sentence for a prior drug offense.
Defendant argues on appeal that the district court erred in (1) failing to require
the government to move for downward departure based on substantial assistance,
in accordance with his interpretation of the plea agreement, and (2) making
sentencing calculations based on duplicate and unreliable estimates of drug
quantity. Because defendant made no objections in the district court, “this court
reviews only for plain error. Plain error occurs when there is (1) error, (2) that is
plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v.
Price , No. 99-7078, 2001 WL 1040776, at *9 (10th Cir. Sept. 11, 2001) (citing
Jones v. United States , 527 U.S. 373, 389 (1999)).
Defendant has not shown that the imposition of his sentence constituted
plain error. The claimed expectation of a government motion for downward
departure is not grounded in either the terms of the plea agreement or the extent
of his cooperation with authorities. Moreover, under the appropriate sentencing
-2-
guidelines, the district court made no miscalculations that affected the length of
defendant’s sentence.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Senior Circuit Judge
-3-