USA v. Jackson

Filing 920060328

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-30655 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARK MARTRELL JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:04-CR-119-2 -------------------Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mark Martrell Jackson pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and two counts of distribution of cocaine base and was sentenced to 324 months of imprisonment on all three counts to run concurrently and five years and four years of supervised release to run concurrently. Jackson appeals, arguing

that his sentence, imposed after the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), grossly overstates

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

No. 05-30655 -2the severity of his conduct to the exclusion of the other sentencing factors to be considered in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and is unreasonable. After Booker, appellate courts ordinarily will review sentences for reasonableness. Booker, 543 U.S. at 261-63; United

States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Under the discretionary sentencing system

established by Booker, district courts retain the duty to consider the Guidelines along with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 518-19. This requires the

court to calculate the applicable guidelines range, and "[i]f the sentencing judge exercises her discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range, in our reasonableness review we will infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines." Id. at 519. In such cases, "it will be rare for a reviewing Id. Thus,

court to say such a sentence is `unreasonable.'"

Mares indicates that, in the wake of Booker, district courts are to continue to calculate a guidelines range, albeit an advisory one. "[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range United States v. Alonzo,

is presumptively reasonable."

435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). The sentencing judge recounted Jackson's pattern of crime, jail, parole, and further crime, considered the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553, considered Jackson's drinking and drug use,

No. 05-30655 -3considered the need to protect the public and send a message to others who might want to deal drugs, and concluded that a sentence at the upper end of the guidelines was needed to prevent Jackson from committing further crimes and to protect the public. Jackson makes no argument that the guidelines sentencing range was not properly calculated. The district court judge properly

took into consideration the appropriate factors, and thus Jackson has failed to demonstrate that his guideline sentence was unreasonable. AFFIRMED. Alonzo,435 F.3d at 553-55.