USA v. Jackson, No. 21-10099 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-10099 Document: 00516107591 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 24, 2021 No. 21-10099 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Joshua William Jackson, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16-CR-196-1 Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Joshua William Jackson, federal prisoner # 54191-177, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion for a compassionate release reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-10099 Document: 00516107591 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2021 No. 21-10099 We construe Jackson’s IFP motion as a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into the good faith of the appeal “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Jackson fails to show an arguable abuse of discretion in the denial of compassionate release. See id.; see also United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). In denying Jackson’s motion, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, specifically citing Jackson’s criminal history, the nature of his offense conduct, his original belowguidelines sentence, and the need to protect the public. Jackson argues that the district court should have accounted for a purported error in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines at the time he was sentenced and for his post-sentencing rehabilitation. Although he may disagree with how the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors, Jackson has not shown that the district court’s decision was based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94. Accordingly, we DISMISS Jackson’s appeal as frivolous and DENY the motion to proceed IFP on appeal. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
