U.S. v. Jackson

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lemuel Fezell JACKSON…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 26, 2001

5 F. App'x 616 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

5 Fed.Appx. 616 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lemuel Fezell JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-30045. D.C. No. CR-92-298-FVS. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 26, 2001

Submitted February 22, 2001.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Following remand, defendant convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine appealed from sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Fred Van Sickle, J. The Court of Appeals held that district court's application of two-level increase in defendant's base offense level for possession of a dangerous weapon during a drug offense, and its failure to apply the same enhancement to his co-defendant, did not create impermissible sentencing disparity.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Fred Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding.

Before B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Lemuel Jackson appeals his resentencing, following remand from this court, for his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court imposed a two-level increase in Jackson's base offense level under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon during a drug offense. Jackson contends that the court's application of the two-level increase to him, and its failure to apply the same enhancement to his co-defendant, has created an impermissible sentencing disparity.

Disparity in sentencing among co-defendants is not a ground for appealing a sentence under the Guidelines. United States v. Carpenter, 914 F.2d 1131, 1135-36 (9th Cir.1990). To be entitled to

Page 617.

relief, "a defendant must show that his sentence was a result of incorrect or inadmissible information, or an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines." Id. at 1136. Jackson does not deny that the two-level increase for possession of a weapon could properly be applied to him; he takes issue with the disparity alone. Accordingly, he has not shown any error in his resentencing.

AFFIRMED.