United States v. Arthur Homer Jackson, No. 09-2127 (3d Cir. May 20, 2010). · Go Syfert
United States v. Arthur Homer Jackson, No. 09-2127 (3d Cir. May 20, 2010). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Arthur Homer Jackson
09-2127.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
May 20, 2010.
Unpublished opinion
Unpublished

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 09-2127 ____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ARTHUR HOMER JACKSON, Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 08-cr-00115) District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 19, 2010

Before: FUENTES, HARDIMAN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

____________

JUDGMENT ORDER

____________

This cause came on to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and was submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on May 19, 2010.

Arthur Homer Jackson appeals his judgment of sentence following his plea of guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the District Court calculated Jackson’s base offense level as 24 in light of § 2K2.1(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG), which adopts the definition of “crime of violence” found at USSG § 4B1.2(a) . After finding that Jackson’s two prior convictions for recklessly endangering another person qualified as crimes of violence under the Guidelines, the District Court did not consider whether Jackson’s prior conviction for indecent assault or his two prior convictions for fleeing and eluding police constituted qualifying offenses.

In response to Jackson’s brief on appeal, the Government concedes that Jackson’s convictions for reckless endangerment are not crimes of violence. See United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 203, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2009). In light of this concession, the parties have suggested that we remand the case for resentencing. Because we agree with the parties that these questions should first be considered by the District Court, it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania entered April 3, 2009, be and the same is hereby VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. No costs shall be taxed.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Thomas M. Hardiman Circuit Judge

ATTEST:

/s/Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Dated: May 20, 2010