United States of America v. Don William Jackson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DON WILLIAM JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-474
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00531-PA-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Don William Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 60-month sentence imposed upon the fourth revocation of his
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 4 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-474
Jackson contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider or address his mitigating arguments concerning his personal
circumstances, employment and criminal history, letters of support from family
and friends, and addiction issues. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is
none. The record reflects that the district court considered Jackson’s mitigating
arguments and explained that the within-Guidelines sentence was warranted in
light of Jackson’s repeated violations and breaches of the court’s trust, his failure
to take advantage of the support offered to him, his ongoing criminal behavior, and
the danger he poses to himself and the public. Contrary to Jackson’s argument,
this explanation is sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, Jackson
has not shown a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a
lower sentence had it more explicitly weighed Jackson’s mitigating arguments
against the aggravating circumstances it cited. See United States v. Dallman, 533
F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --