United States of America v. Willie Keith Jackson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WILLIE KEITH JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-30131
No. 17-30132
D.C. Nos. 3:04-cr-00141-RRB
3:15-cr-00080-RRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Willie Keith Jackson appeals from the district
court’s judgment and challenges the 20-month aggregate sentence imposed upon
revocation of 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
MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-30131 & 17-30132
Jackson contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain its reasons for imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, terms. We
review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The court explained that it
was imposing a 10-month sentence in each of Jackson’s cases, and running them
consecutively, in light of Jackson’s history and characteristics, poor performance
on supervised release, and the need to protect the public. The court’s explanation
was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc). Contrary to Jackson’s contention, nothing in the record suggests that the
court believed it was required to impose consecutive terms.
Jackson also contends that the consecutive sentences are substantively
unreasonable because concurrent 10-month terms would have been sufficient to
meet the goals of sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 20-month aggregate sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and
the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States
v. Xinidakis, 598 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A district court has discretion
to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences after revocation of multiple
concurrent terms of supervised release.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --