PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4580

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JARVIS MIKEL JACKSON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:21−cr−00495−HMH−1)

Argued: September 27, 2024 Decided: January 31, 2025

Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Harris wrote the opinion, in which Judge Agee and Senior Judge Keenan joined.

ARGUED: Kimberly Harvey Albro, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Brook Bowers Andrews, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Andrea G. Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4580 Doc: 42 Filed: 01/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 16

PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge:

Jarvis Mikel Jackson pled guilty to possession of a firearm as a felon, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court calculated an advisory Sentencing Guidelines

range of 110 to 120 months’ imprisonment and sentenced Jackson to a prison term of 115

months. In this appeal, Jackson raises two challenges to his sentence.

First, Jackson argues that the district court erred in calculating his Guidelines

sentencing range by treating two prior South Carolina convictions for drug distribution as

“controlled substance offense[s]” under the Guidelines, increasing his base offense level.

See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1). According to Jackson, that determination was inconsistent

with United States v. Campbell, 22 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2022), which held that a violation

of West Virginia’s controlled substances statute did not qualify as a Guidelines controlled

substance offense. We disagree. As we have explained already, South Carolina’s drug

distribution statute is “materially distinguishable” from the West Virginia statute at issue

in Campbell, and a distribution conviction under South Carolina’s statute is a controlled

substance offense as defined by the Guidelines. See United States v. Davis, 75 F.4th 428,

443–45 (4th Cir. 2023). That precedent squarely governs here.

We do, however, agree with Jackson that the district court failed to explain its 115-

month sentence or address Jackson’s arguments for a lower term of imprisonment. The

absence of an individualized explanation for a sentence constitutes procedural error, and

we therefore vacate Jackson’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4580 Doc: 42 Filed: 01/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 16

I.

This is the second time Jackson has appealed his sentence, and the procedural

history of this case is somewhat complex. We begin with Jackson’s first sentencing and

appeal. We then briefly describe our decisions in United States v. Groves, 65 F.4th 166

(4th Cir. 2023) and United States v. Davis, 75 F.4th 428 (4th Cir. 2023), which issued

shortly after we decided Jackson’s original appeal and before his resentencing. Finally, we

turn to the resentencing now at issue.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document