United States v. Jackson

MEMORANDUM *

The district court properly decided that it had no jurisdiction to hear Jackson’s motion to withdraw her plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e). A limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline 1 does not vest a district court with the authority to re-sentence or consider new objections unless the district court first determines that it would have given a materially different sentence under an advisory guideline system and vacates the sentence. 2 Jackson’s argument that what occurred after her second remand was, or should have been, something other than a limited remand is unavailing. The prior law of this case demonstrates that all Jackson was awarded after her second trip to the Ninth Circuit was a limited remand pursuant to Ameline. 3 The district court’s task was complete when it determined, following the limited remand, that it would not have sentenced Jackson to a materially different sentence under an advisory guideline system.

Under certain circumstances, we would have jurisdiction to review a defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea, even though the district court did not. 5 In this case, however, Jackson waived her right to…