Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. United States

August 13, 2007

CHARLES JACKSON
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Leon Jordan United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Charles Jackson brings this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner was convicted in 2004, by jury verdict, of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute more than five grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(b)(1)(B). The Court later imposed a 247-month Guidelines sentence, but after adjusting it to reflect the 64-month sentence petitioner had served for a state drug conviction in Virginia, his effective total sentence was 198 months. (The alteration was made because the conduct underlying the state conviction was also a part of the conspiracy and had been deemed "relevant conduct" and used in calculating his Guidelines sentence.)

Petitioner filed a direct appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and, when the appeal was rejected, he unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court for review. United States v. Jackson, 473 F. 3d 660 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 2294 (2007). He now brings this instant motion, alleging, as his two grounds for relief, that the Court lacked jurisdiction to try him and that the government knowingly used false evidence to procure his conviction. However, the United States will not be required to file an answer to the motion and, for the reasons below, the case will be dismissed.

I. Standards of Review

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, a court must consider initially whether the face of the motion itself, together with the annexed exhibits and prior proceedings in the case, reveals the movant is not entitled to relief. If it plainly appears the movant is not entitled to relief, a court may summarily dismiss a § 2255 motion under Rule 4.

II. Factual Background

The following account is taken from the Sixth Circuit's opinion on direct appeal.

This case arises from the government's investigation of an interstate drug-distribution organization headed by Vernon McCallum ("McCallum"). McCallum purchased powder cocaine in New York, converted it to crack, and then shipped it to eastern Tennessee hidden inside of the vaginas of female employees, known as "mules." McCallum or one of his other employees met the mules in Tennessee, took delivery of the crack, and distributed it to street-level dealers. According to the government, Jackson was one of those dealers from June 1999 until January 2000.

On July 23, 2002, a grand jury handed down a twenty-four-count sealed indictment against Jackson and his alleged co-conspirators. Jackson was indicted on two counts of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute crack cocaine, in quantities of fifty grams or more (Count 1) and five grams or more (Count 2).

On November 19, 2004, after a three-day trial, a jury convicted Jackson of conspiring to distribute and possess five or more grams of crack (Count 2) but acquitted him of conspiring to distribute and possess more than fifty grams (Count 1).

Jackson, 473 F. 3d at 662-63.

III. Discussion

A. Claim One

In his first claim, petitioner argues that this Court had no jurisdiction over his case because the evidence at trial indicated that he possessed and sold cocaine base in Bristol, Virginia, which lies within the Western District of Virginia. Petitioner did not present this claim on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.