United States of America v. Anthony Cortez Jackson

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY CORTEZ JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30323
D.C. No. 2:93-cr-00379-JCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Cortez Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jackson contends that the district court erred by failing to calculate the
FILED
AUG 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30323 2
Sentencing Guidelines range and explain the sentence. We review for plain error,
see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and
find none. The record reflects that the court was aware of the Sentencing
Guidelines range and considered the evidence and arguments before imposing the
24-month sentence. Nothing more was required. See Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).
Jackson next argues that the district court erred by including in the judgment
the date he was taken into federal custody, which he contends may constrain the
Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) ability to credit him for the time he served in state
custody that was not credited towards his state sentence. Contrary to Jackson’s
claim, the district court’s judgment does not limit the BOP’s authority to calculate
Jackson’s sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --