Filed: Jul. 18, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT July 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-31142 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROOSEVELT JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (03-CR-50045-ALL) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This co
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT July 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-31142 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROOSEVELT JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (03-CR-50045-ALL) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This cou..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT July 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-31142
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROOSEVELT JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(03-CR-50045-ALL)
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This court affirmed Roosevelt Jackson’s guilty-plea conviction
for distribution of 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and his 188-month sentence. United
States v. Jackson, No. 03-31142,
2004 WL 1418791 (5th Cir. 22 June
2004). The Supreme Court granted Jackson’s petition for writ of
certiorari and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP);
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
vacated our previous judgment; and remanded the case for further
consideration in the light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
___,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Jackson v. United States,
125 S. Ct.
1015 (2005). We requested, and received, supplemental briefs
addressing the impact of Booker. Having reconsidered our decision
pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instructions, we reinstate our
judgment affirming the conviction and sentence.
For the first time in his petition for writ of certiorari,
Jackson challenged the constitutionality of his sentence, based on
the then-recent holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ____,
124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), because he was sentenced based on certain
facts neither pleaded to, nor found by, a jury. Absent
extraordinary circumstances, we will not consider a defendant’s
Booker-related claims presented for the first time in a petition
for writ of certiorari. United States v. Taylor, ___ F.3d ___,
2005 WL 1155245, at *1 (5th Cir. 17 May 2005).
Jackson has presented no evidence of extraordinary
circumstances. Even if such circumstances were not required,
because Jackson did not raise his Booker-claims in district court,
any review would be only for plain error. See United States v.
Mares,
402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed,
(U.S.
31 A.K. Marsh. 2005) (No. 04-9517). Jackson does not contend his
claims satisfy plain-error review, as described in Mares, because
he makes no attempt in showing any error affected his substantial
2
rights. (Along this line, Jackson contends: the district court
committed “structural error” when it sentenced him under a
mandatory guidelines system; and prejudice to his substantial
rights should therefore be presumed. However, our court has
rejected this contention as inconsistent with Mares. See United
States v. Malveaux, ___ F.3d ___,
2005 WL 827121, at n.9 (5th Cir.
11 April 2005). He raises the Booker-issue only in order to
preserve it for possible review by the Supreme Court.) In sum,
because he fails plain-error review, Jackson falls far short of
showing the requisite extraordinary circumstances.
AFFIRMED
3