Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. JACKSON, 13-131. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana Number: infdco20141103669 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 31, 2014
Summary: ORDER MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON, District Judge. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Stacey Jackson's Motion to Correct Sentence Error under Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Doc. #188) is DENIED. Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure provides that "the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error," within 14 days after the oral announcement of the sentence. Jackson argues that this court erred by imposing restitution o
More

ORDER

MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Stacey Jackson's Motion to Correct Sentence Error under Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Doc. #188) is DENIED.

Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure provides that "the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error," within 14 days after the oral announcement of the sentence. Jackson argues that this court erred by imposing restitution on her for amounts associated with conduct attributed to Richard Hall.

At sentencing, this court overruled Jackson's objections to the presentence investigation report regarding Hall, finding that Hall's conduct was part of the same conspiracy for which Jackson was convicted and that Hall was named in Jackson's indictment as a co-conspirator, specifically, as a person known to the grand jury. The Mandatary Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2) states restitution must be paid to any "person directly or proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered, including in the case of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any person directly harmed by the defendant's criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern." This court has already ruled that Hall was a part of the conspiracy for which Jackson was convicted. Thus, Jackson is jointly and severally liable for the amount of restitution attributable to Hall's participation in the scheme.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer