United States v. Dwight Jackson

Case: 09-31052 Document: 00511514575 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 21, 2011
No. 09-31052
Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DWIGHT C. JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:09-CR-85-1
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dwight C. Jackson appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty
plea conviction for possession of five grams or more of cocaine base with intent
to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime. Jackson’s sentence on the drug count was enhanced due to his prior
conviction for possession of cocaine. The district court sentenced Jackson to the
statutory minimum sentence of 120 months of imprisonment on the drug count
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 09-31052 Document: 00511514575 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2011
No. 09-31052
and the statutory minimum consecutive sentence of 60 months of imprisonment
on the firearm count.
Jackson first argues that the five-year minimum sentence required by 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) should not have been imposed because his sentence on
the drug possession count constitutes a greater minimum sentence than is
otherwise provided by another provision of law. As he concedes, his argument
is foreclosed in this circuit; this issue has since been decided adversely to him by
the Supreme Court. See Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18, 23 (2010); United
States v. London, 568 F.3d 553, 564 (5th Cir. 2009).
Next, Jackson argues that his case should be remanded to the district
court for resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-
220, 124 Stat. 2372, which raised the minimum quantity of cocaine base required
to trigger the mandatory minimum sentence he received on the drug count.
Although his guilty plea and sentencing occurred before the effective date of the
Fair Sentencing Act, he maintains that the Fair Sentencing Act is retroactively
applicable because his case is not yet final. This argument is also foreclosed.
See United States v. Doggins, 633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
2