Filed: Aug. 17, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-17-2006 USA v. Jackson Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-2412 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "USA v. Jackson" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 575. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/575 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United Stat
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-17-2006 USA v. Jackson Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-2412 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "USA v. Jackson" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 575. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/575 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United State..
More
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-17-2006
USA v. Jackson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2412
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Jackson" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 575.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/575
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-2412
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
BRAHEEM JACKSON,
Appellant.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 02-cr-00172-36)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 23, 2006
Before: SLOVITER and FUENTES, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI*, International Trade
Judge.
(Filed: August 17, 2006)
OPINION OF THE COURT
*
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
1
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
Braheem Jackson challenges his conviction as well as the constitutionality of his
384-month sentence in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). For the
reasons stated herein, we affirm Jackson’s conviction, but remand his case for re-
sentencing in accordance with the mandate of Booker.
I.
Jackson was charged in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with: (1) conspiracy
to distribute cocaine or cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; (2) use of a firearm
in furtherance of a drug offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); (3) possession with
intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine or cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and (4) possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of
cocaine or cocaine base within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860(a).
Prior to the trial, Jackson moved to suppress the gun and the drugs gathered from 636
North Brooklyn Street, the house where Jackson was arrested. This motion was denied at
a pre-trial hearing, and the case moved forward to trial. At the conclusion of the trial,
Jackson was convicted of the firearm and drug charges. As part of its verdict, the jury
made a specific finding that Jackson was responsible for possessing or distributing at least
50 grams of cocaine base. The jury could not, however, reach a verdict on the conspiracy
count, and that charge was eventually dismissed on the motion of the United States.
Jackson was subsequently sentenced to 324 months in prison for the drug possession
2
charges and an additional 60 months for the gun charge. This appeal followed.
II.
In filing both his opening and reply briefs, Jackson was represented by counsel. In
both of those briefs, Jackson challenges only his sentence, on the ground that it was
unconstitutional in light of Booker. After these briefs had been filed, however, Jackson
filed a motion requesting permission to file a supplemental brief without the assistance of
counsel. Though we initially denied this motion, upon further consideration we granted
Jackson leave “to file a pro se brief challenging the District Court’s denial of [his] motion
to suppress evidence.”
Jackson raises two challenges to his conviction in his pro se brief. First, he
discusses the issue we granted him leave to address, namely, the District Court’s denial of
his motion to suppress. Jackson claims that the motion to suppress should have been
granted because at the suppression hearing the prosecution put on a witness it knew
would give false testimony. Accordingly, Jackson requests that we vacate the denial of
his motion to suppress and remand his case for a new trial on all charges. Jackson second
argues in his pro se brief that his possession of a gun in furtherance of a drug offense
charge should have been included as a lesser included offense within the conspiracy
charge. Because the jury did not find him guilty of conspiracy, Jackson maintains that
Double Jeopardy protections bar his being convicted of the gun possession charge. We
will first address Jackson’s pro se claims, then move on to his Booker challenge.
3
III.
A.
Because Jackson failed to allege prosecutorial misconduct before the District Court
and raised no objection at that time, we review for plain error. United States v. Brennan,
326 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 52(b). “In order to
demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct under a plain error standard, the review must reveal
‘egregious error or a manifest miscarriage of justice.’”
Id. (quoting United States v.
Brown,
254 F.3d 454, 458 (3d Cir. 2001)). Jackson argues that, at the pre-trial
suppression hearing, the prosecution commited an act of misconduct by presenting
favorable police officer testimony, while excluding the contradictory testimony of civilian
witness David West. Jackson maintains that if West’s testimony had been presented, it
would have established that evidence seized from the residence where Jackson was
arrested was taken unlawfully: whereas the police claim they entered 636 North Brooklyn
Street in “hot pursuit” of West, West claims the police broke into the residence after he
had already surrendered.
The general rule applied in these circumstances is that a “conviction obtained by
the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, and must be set aside if
there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the
judgment of the jury.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 (1976) (footnotes
omitted). Bearing this rule in mind, Jackson’s prosecutorial misconduct claim fails for
4
two reasons. First, West’s testimony does not demonstrate that the police officer
testimony is perjured. Though West’s testimony does stand in contradiction to the police
officer testimony, “it is not enough that the testimony is challenged by another witness”
for it to be considered perjured. United States v. Payne, 940 F.2d 286, 291 (8th Cir.
1991).
Second, even if the police officer testimony was false, the requirement that the
prosecution knew of the perjury has not been satisfied. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103. In this
case, the prosecution was presented with only conflicting testimony, and without
definitive evidence to determine whose testimony was credible, it was not possible at the
time of the suppression hearing for the prosecution to know if the police testimony
constituted perjury. Thus, we see no plain error here, and Jackson’s prosecutorial
misconduct claim accordingly fails.
In regard to the gun charges, because Jackson raised this issue for the first time in
his pro se brief, which was submitted after his opening brief, it did not meet the general
requirement that issues on appeal must be set forth and argued in a party’s opening brief.
United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 107 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc). Unlike the denial of
Jackson’s motion to suppress, we did not grant Jackson permission to bypass this
requirement as to his Double Jeopardy claim. That claim is thus waived.
B.
Jackson requests re-sentencing pursuant to Booker, and the prosecution concedes
5
this issue. In United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162 (3d. Cir. 2005) (en banc), this Court
adopted a policy of granting re-sentencing to cases on direct review that were in violation
of the Booker mandate. We held that prejudice can be presumed if a defendant is subject
to “a sentence greater than the maximum authorized by the facts found by the jury alone,”
or treatment of the “Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory.”
Id. at 164. Since the
District Court treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, and found Jackson
responsible for an amount drugs exceeding that found by jury,1 we grant re-sentencing.
III.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm Jackson’s conviction, but remand this
matter for re-sentencing.
1
The District Court found Jackson responsible for 898 grams of cocaine base, (App. 3.16),
in excess of the “50 grams or more” found by the jury, (App. 4a-4e); the District Court
judge indicated that he treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory by stating, “my
hands are very much tied under the way the federal law works,” (App. 3.28).
6
