United States of America v. Daneyelle Jackson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANEYELLE JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50171
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01325-MMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Daneyelle Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of probation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
FEB 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
13-50171

-- 1 of 2 --

Jackson contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to
calculate the applicable Guidelines range; (2) failing to adequately explain the
sentence; (3) failing to address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (4)
relying on improper factors. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. Jackson
has not shown a reasonable probability that she would have received a different
sentence had the court explicitly calculated the Guidelines range or explained why
it adopted the range applicable to Jackson’s underlying offense rather than the
range provided in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755,
762 (9th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the district court adequately addressed the relevant
sentencing factors and did not rely on any impermissible factor. See United States
v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2006).
To the extent Jackson contends that her sentence is substantively
unreasonable, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Jackson’s
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the relevant sentencing factors and the totality
of the circumstances, including Jackson’s repeated probation violations. See id.
AFFIRMED.
13-50171 2

-- 2 of 2 --