United States v. Jackson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4954
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SOLOMON JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00072-2)
Submitted: May 11, 2007 Decided: July 2, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fredilyn Sison, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Asheville, North Carolina, Emily Marroquin, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Thomas
Cullen, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In 2001, Solomon Jackson plead guilty to conspiracy to
commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000), uttering
fraudulent securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a)(2000), and
bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2000). Jackson was
sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment followed by three years
of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $234,873.64 in
restitution and $2166.10 in court appointed attorney’s fees.
Jackson was released in January of 2004. Twenty-eight
months later his probation officer petitioned the court to revoke
Jackson’s supervised release for failure to pay restitution.
At the show cause hearing, Jackson’s probation officer
testified that Jackson was to pay $50 a month, but Jackson had told
the probation office he could not make even nominal payments
because he was unemployed. The officer also testified that Jackson
had actually worked for two different temporary staffing agencies
from February 2004 until May 2006. Further, Jackson realized a net
income of $12,000 in both 2004 and 2005 and a net income of $800-
900 a month during 2006. Jackson also told his probation officer
that he could not pay restitution due to his responsibility for
child support payments, but Jackson had not made a child support
payment since June 2005. Finally, Jackson made no payments toward
restitution while on supervised release.
- 2 -
Following the probation officer’s testimony, Jackson took
the stand. Jackson testified that his criminal background,
education level, and dyslexia made it difficult to find employment.
Jackson testified he worked for a few months making eight dollars
an hour and later worked part time cleaning banks making seven
dollars an hour. Jackson also testified that his monthly housing
expenses ranged from approximately $375-550 a month. During much
of the time Jackson was on supervised release, he was married;
however, his wife did not share her income with him. Finally,
Jackson testified that he refused to complete paperwork to permit
garnishment of his wages because he was afraid of losing his job.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the district court
found Jackson in violation of his supervised release and sentenced
him to six months’ imprisonment. Jackson timely noted his appeal
and challenges the district court’s findings and his sentence.
This court reviews a sentence imposed as a result of a
supervised release violation to determine whether the sentence was
plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438
(4th Cir. 2006). Because the sentence imposed was procedurally and
substantively reasonable, we affirm the district court.
Jackson’s failure to pay restitution was a grade C
offense, USSG § 7B1.1(a)(3), and combined with his criminal history
score of VI, his violation was punishable by an additional eight to
fourteen months’ imprisonment. USSG § 7B1.4. Thus, Jackson’s six
- 3 -
month sentence was procedurally reasonable because it was within
the applicable statutory range, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) & (h)
(2000), and below the recommended guideline.
In addition, Jackson’s sentence was substantively
reasonable. He earned approximately $12,000 in 2004 and 2005 and
approximately $800-900 a month in 2006, but paid nothing toward
restitution, lied to his probation officer as to why he could not
make nominal payments, and refused to cooperate with his probation
officer’s attempt to garnish his wages.
Accordingly, because Jackson’s sentence was not
unreasonable, let alone plainly so, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -