USA v. Jackson

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID A. JACKSON, a/k/a Gerald
David Jackson, a/k/a Gerald D.
Roderick-Jackson,
Defendant.
Criminal No: 21-CR-87-F
OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION (ECF 84) AND
AMENDED MOTION (ECF 92) TO CORRECT CAPTION AND AMEND
JUDGMENT OF COMMITMENT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s pro se motions to amend
the caption and the amended judgment. 	ECF 84, 92. 	Defendant argues that the names
reflected in the caption and amended judgment are incorrect because he changed his name
before the judgment entered. ECF 84 requests to change his name in the caption to David
A. Jackson-Mackay with three f/k/a names: David A. Jackson, Gerald David Jackson, and
Gerald D. Roderick-Jackson. ECF 92 amends ECF 84 to change several of the allegations
and to request this case reflect his name as David A. Mackay with the same three f/k/a
names. It appears Defendant requests this relief so that when he is transferred to the Bureau
of Prisons (“BOP”) to begin his sentence, they will have him under his current name. The
government has filed a response to ECF 84 and opposes the motion on several grounds.
Defendant does not cite a rule or statute governing his request. As the Court stated
11:51 am, 12/8/22
FILED
Margaret Botkins
Clerk of Court
Case 1:21-cr-00087-NDF Document 94 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 8

2
in denying Defendant’s June 10, 2022 motion (ECF 68) to amend the caption, this type of
motion is one to correct the sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. 	As
such, it had to be filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment, or June 7, 2022. ECF 71
(Order of June 10, 2022).
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 would only allow correction of clerical
errors, and there is no clerical error regarding the names noted for Defendant in the caption
or the judgment. 	These are the names for Defendant in the indictment. 	Defendant does
not dispute that he has used the names David A. Jackson, Gerald David Jackson, and Gerald
D. Roderick-Jackson. 	The government notes these are names he used during the time
period of his offense in this case.
Defendant cites United States v. White, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109889 or 2011 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 43438 (D. Kan. 2011), as a case addressing a defendant’s request to amend
the judgment to reflect only the new name he legally adopted after entry of the criminal
judgment. 	The district court assumed it had jurisdiction to amend the judgment. 	The
district court denied the request because it would “result in confusion and create record-
keeping problems for the federal courts.” United States v. White, CR 09-20147-KHV, 2011
WL 13174484, at *1–2 (D. Kan. Apr. 21, 2011), aff'd, 490 F. App’x 979 (10th Cir. 2012).
On denying reconsideration, the district court made plain that the applicable Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) policy would add the offender’s new name as an alias to his committed
name in the BOP records – once he provided BOP with a certified copy of the state court
order changing his name. 	Id., 2011 WL 13174472, at *2 (D. Kan. Sept. 26, 2011). 	On
Case 1:21-cr-00087-NDF Document 94 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 8

3
appeal, the Tenth Circuit assumed the district court had jurisdiction to hear the request and
affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the offender’s request.
In this case, assuming the Court has jurisdiction to hear the request, Defendant does
not show relief is warranted.
Defendant contends that his names in the amended judgment are not his current
name. 	In ECF 84, he says he is David A. Jackson-Mackay. 	This is based on a divorce
decree of May 5, 2022 from the District Court for the Eighth Judicial District in Platte
County, Wyoming. ECF 84-7 (uncertified copy attached to Defendant’s motion as Ex. 7).
The divorce decree is dated nineteen days before his original judgment in this case and
twenty days before his amended judgment. 	However, the government points out that
Defendant completed the proposed decree indicating Jackson-Mackay as his former
surname. But his surname prior to his marriage to Mr. Mackay was instead David Andrew
Jackson, as reflected on the marriage license Defendant attached as Exhibit 2 (ECF 84-2).
The proposed decree included Defendant’s signature certifying that all statements therein
were correct. 	ECF 84-7. 	It appears the state court judge signed the proposed decree
without modification based on Defendant’s inaccurate (or fraudulent) certification of
accuracy.
The Court must give only “the same full faith and credit” to the divorce decree as
the judgment has “by law or usage in the courts of such State.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1738.
Wyoming law sets aside or modifies judgments obtained by fraud (extrinsic or intrinsic).
See, e.g., Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-16-401 (a court can vacate or modify its judgment “[f]or
Case 1:21-cr-00087-NDF Document 94 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3 of 8

4
mistake, neglect or omission of the clerk or irregularity in obtaining a judgment or order”;
or “[f]or fraud practiced by the successful party in obtaining a judgment or order”). The
name-change provision of the Wyoming divorce decree is either fraudulent or a mistake.
The Court is also unwilling to accept an uncertified copy of the divorce decree. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1738. 	Accordingly, Defendant has not shown that he legally changed his name to the
one he requests in ECF 84. That motion is DENIED.
As for the name that Defendant requests in his amended motion ECF 92, David A.
Mackay, Defendant apparently chose this name because it was his legal name at the time
the indictment issued. 	It may be that Defendant also recognizes after the government’s
response that the May 5, 2022 divorce decree’s name-change provision is incorrect, if not
fraudulent. 	But again, Defendant has not shown that he was legally named David A.
Mackay when the judgment entered in this case. To the contrary, at that time, Defendant
purportedly had changed his name to David A. Jackson-Mackay in the Wyoming divorce
decree. Accordingly, ECF 92 is DENIED.
In addition, even if Defendant had shown his legal name at the time of judgment
was David A. Mackay, he does not show good cause to amend the judgment to reflect that
as his then-current name. Defendant does not cite any authority that the judgment must be
in his current legal name. 	Doing so would cause even more confusion for the Court’s
record-keeping than Defendant’s multiple names have already caused. 	For one thing,
Mackay is the former married name that Defendant had attempted to change, until his
amended motion. For another, Defendant does not show that the name and f/k/a names on
Case 1:21-cr-00087-NDF Document 94 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4 of 8

5
the judgment are erroneous. They are among many names that Defendant has used in this
offense and his prior offenses, each of which involved a form of fraud or deceit. 	The
Presentence Report for instance lists thirteen versions of names that he has used as aliases. 1
Defendant’s reply recognizes that he has used at least seven different names over
the many years in which he has been in the criminal justice system: Gerald David Shupe,
Jr.; Gerald David Roderick; Gerald David Manzanares; Gerald David Jackson; David
Andrew Jackson; David Andrew Mackay; and David Andrew Jackson-Mackay. 	ECF 93
at 4. But even in that list, there are at least two significant problems. First, he states that
from his birth (March 1, 1985) until June 30, 2007, he went by the name Gerald David
Shupe, Jr. This is the name that the Presentence Report states as his birth name (according
to his mother, ¶ 62), but it is not the name on the photo of a birth certificate that he
submitted with his motion: David Andrew Jackson. ECF 84-1. The birth certificate issued
in 2018, and perhaps it reflects his then-changed name. But Defendant does not explain.
Second, Defendant’s list also omits that he went by Gerald David Shupe Roderick, a name
under which he filed seven civil actions in this Court. 	Even during the pendency of this
case alone, Defendant has used multiple names in his filings with the Court – sometimes
using David A. Mackay, other times using David A. Jackson-Mackay, etc.
It is therefore not surprising that the criminal justice system still knows Defendant
1 Those aliases are: Gerald David Shupe, Jr. (birth name), Jerry Shupe (nickname), Gerald D. Shupe-Roderick, Gerald
David Shupe-Roderick, Roderick Shupe, Gerald D. Shupe, Gerald D. Roderick, Gerald David Roderick, Gerald
Roderick, Gerald Manzanares, Gerald Davis Manzanares, Gerald David Manzanares, and Gerald A. Jackson-Mackay.
Defendant did not make any factual objections to the presentence report, and the Court adopted it as its findings of
fact. ECF 75 (Tr.) at 3.
Case 1:21-cr-00087-NDF Document 94 Filed 12/08/22 Page 5 of 8

6
by multiple names: 	the Wyoming Department of Corrections has him as Gerald D.
Manzanares (#34153); this Court has him in this case as David A. Jackson, f/k/a Gerald
David Jackson, f/k/a Gerald D. Roderick-Jackson. The record does not reflect whether the
U.S. Marshals still have Defendant as Gerald Shupe. 	This is the name under which the
Marshals arrested him in 2013, according to an email that Defendant attaches to his reply.
ECF 93-2.
As noted above, the government’s indictment used the names David A. Jackson,
Gerald David Jackson and Gerald D. Roderick-Jackson apparently because those were the
names of which the government was aware from Defendant’s offense in this case.
Including aliases in the indictment is appropriate when there is evidence the defendant used
that name. 	United States v. Skolek, 474 F.2d 582, 586 (10th Cir. 1973). 	Although the
government perhaps could have chosen to list even more aliases for Defendant in the
indictment, Defendant does not cite any legal authority that the government was wrong to
not include the aliases Defendant began using after the offense conduct, i.e., David A.
Mackay and David A. Jackson-Mackay.
Defendant contends that the government’s counsel agreed to change the name on
the indictment, when Defendant raised the issue at the change of plea and sentencing
hearings. This is incorrect. Defendant raised the issue at his change of plea in February
2022. But at that point he argued only that his detention center had him as Gerald Shupe
and because there was no record of mental health services for him under that name, there
was an issue in obtaining those services. ECF 51 (Tr.) at 28. The government’s counsel
Case 1:21-cr-00087-NDF Document 94 Filed 12/08/22 Page 6 of 8

7
said she would work with the U.S. Marshals on that issue, and the email Defendant attaches
to his reply shows that she did so. Defendant did not raise any issue regarding his name(s)
at the sentencing hearing. ECF 75 (Tr.).
Finally, it appears that Defendant seeks to change the names in this case not for any
legitimate purpose – he does not for instance point to any lack of services because of the
names used in this case – but instead to make it more difficult for this conviction to be
traced to him. Offenders often use aliases to conceal their identity. 	Cf., United States v.
Glass, 128 F.3d 1398, 1408 (10th Cir. 1977) (“A defendant's use of an alias to conceal his
identity from law enforcement officers is relevant as proof of consciousness of guilt”).
Despite having a history of fraud and theft convictions dating back to when he was
sixteen, it appears this is Defendant’s first federal conviction. 	The victim in this case
testified that he “was unable to find out [Defendant’s] true history because it was masked
and covered in investigations and things. So it was not public, so I wasn’t able to find that
out.” 	ECF 75 at 26. 	The presentence report reflects that Defendant’s mother reported
Defendant has thus far struggled his entire life with being truthful and taking responsibility
for his actions. ECF 54 ¶ 62. She loves him, but she never knows what name he is using.
She knows he uses many different names, and when he is arrested, he rarely tells her the
truth about what led to it. 	She wishes he would accept that he has to be honest and take
responsibility for his actions. 	From these facts, and the long list of both fraud or theft
convictions, and the equally long list of names that Defendant has used, it appears he
wishes to change the name on this conviction – to either of two names he began using after
Case 1:21-cr-00087-NDF Document 94 Filed 12/08/22 Page 7 of 8

8
this conduct – to help him conceal his identity and this conviction. This is a further reason
the Court denies both motions.
Any further motions from Defendant regarding his name will be summarily denied.
The Court has heard Defendant on three motions on this issue and denied his requests. If
Defendant still believes he needs additional names recognized by BOP when he enters their
custody, Defendant should follow BOP’s policy and process for recognizing name changes.
But Defendant should take note: even when an offender changes his name for a legitimate
reason, such as religious purposes, he is not entitled to be “known only by his new legal
name.” White, 2011 WL 13174472, at *2.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant’s motions ECF 84
and 92 are DENIED.
DATED this 8th day of December 2022.
_______________________________________
NANCY D. FREUDENTHAL
UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
______________________________________________
ANCY	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y D FREUDENTHAL
Case 1:21-cr-00087-NDF Document 94 Filed 12/08/22 Page 8 of 8