13‐2724‐cr United States v. Jackson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of August, two thousand fourteen.

PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, JOHN F. KEENAN,* District Judge. ____________________________________________

United States,

Appellee,

‐v.‐ No. 13‐2724‐cr

Antoine Andre Jackson,

Defendant‐Appellant.

The Honorable John F. Keenan, of the United States District Court for the Southern *

District of New York, sitting by designation.

1 ____________________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: PAUL P. RINALDO, Grossman & Rinaldo, Forest Hills, NY.

FOR APPELLEE: MICHAEL GERBER (Michael A. Levy, on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kenneth K. Karas, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED in part and

VACATED and REMANDED in part.

Antoine Andre Jackson appeals from a July 9, 2013 judgment of the United

States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Karas, J.) revoking

his term of supervised release and sentencing him to, inter alia, 21 months’

imprisonment for violating a term of his supervised release to be followed by a

term of 15 months’ supervised release.

On appeal, Jackson principally challenges the district court’s

determination that Jackson’s wife, who testified at the May 14, 2013 revocation

hearing, was credible in part. Given the substantial deference we grant district

courts to make credibility determinations, see United States v. Beverly,

,

2 642 (2d Cir. 1993), and the evidence that corroborated the relevant portions of

Jackson’s wife’s testimony, we decline to upset the district court’s credibility

assessment.

The government recognizes that Jackson had a right to address the district

court prior to sentencing and accordingly consents to a remand for the sole

purpose of resentencing.

We have considered Jackson’s remaining arguments and find them to be

without merit. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3