No Expectation of Finality in Sentences Served Under Appeal: United States v. Jackson

Introduction

United States v. Jackson is a precedential Third Circuit decision handed down on March 21, 2025, that clarifies fundamental principles of sentencing finality and the constitutional bounds of judicial fact‐finding at resentencing. Appellants Carolyn Jackson and her husband John Jackson were convicted in a 39‐day jury trial of horrific child abuse offenses under the Assimilative Crimes Act. Their sentences were vacated three times by this Court for procedural error, remanded for resentencing, and reassigned to a new district judge. On their fourth round of appeals, the Jacksons challenged: (1) the District Court’s judicial fact‐finding under Apprendi/Alleyne; (2) whether double jeopardy or due process protects a defendant who completes service of a sentence that remains under appeal; (3) application of the law‐of‐the‐case doctrine; and (4) the procedural and substantive reasonableness of their new sentences. The Third Circuit affirmed on all issues.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s 140‐month term of imprisonment for Carolyn Jackson and 108 months for John Jackson. Key holdings include:

Judicial fact‐finding to apply sentencing enhancements under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) does not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendment if it does not increase the statutory maximum or mandatory minimum sentence.
A defendant has no reasonable expectation of finality—and thus no double jeopardy or due process bar to resentencing—so long as an appeal is pending, regardless of whether the defendant has completed service of the original sentence.
The law‐of‐the‐case doctrine did not bind the resentencing judge because prior sentences had been vacated, leaving no settled sentence to govern on remand.
The sentences imposed by the new judge were both procedurally and substantively reasonable, and any procedural guideline calculation errors were harmless in light of a valid alternative sentencing analysis.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court relied heavily on Supreme Court and Third Circuit authority to ground its rulings:

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and Alleyne v. United States (2013) – holding that any fact which increases a statutory maximum or mandatory minimum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reaffirmed that judge‐found facts that affect only guideline ranges (not statutory limits) do not violate these decisions.
DiFrancesco v. United States (1980) – establishing that a sentence under appeal carries no expectation of finality and does not trigger double jeopardy protections.
Bozza v. United States (1947) and Busic v. United States (1981) – illustrating that lawful resentencing after vacatur does not constitute double jeopardy.
United States v. Grier (2007) and United States v. Gonzalez (2018) – upholding judge‐found guideline enhancements absent statutory maximum impact.
Pepper v. United States (2011) – confirming that vacated sentences leave the defendant unsentenced on remand, with no binding law‐of‐the‐case.
United States v. Raia (2021) – detailing harmless error review for guideline miscalculations and the formulation of valid alternative sentences.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Third Circuit’s reasoning can be divided into four principal strands:

Constitutionality of Judicial Fact‐Finding
Because the District Court’s findings regarding “serious bodily injury” and “dangerous weapon” enhancements under U.S.S.G. §2A2.2 did not raise the statutory maxima (ten years per count), Apprendi/Alleyne do not require jury findings. The Third Circuit reiterated that guideline enhancements remain a matter of judge‐found fact so long as statutory ceilings are unaffected.
No Reasonable Expectation of Finality
Relying on DiFrancesco, the Court held that a sentence under appeal never ripens into finality, even if fully served. The Jacksons’ argument that completing the served term while appeal was pending vested a due process or double jeopardy right was expressly rejected. To hold otherwise would grant “unjustified windfalls” and undermine the appellate process.
Inapplicability of Law‐of‐the‐Case
All prior sentencing orders had been vacated on appeal. With no prior lawful sentencing determinations binding the district court, the resentencing judge sat with a clean slate. The Court cited Pepper to emphasize that vacated rulings leave no law‐of‐the‐case constraints on remand.
Reasonableness of Sentences
The District Court’s procedural steps—calculation of the guidelines, consideration of departures, application of 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors—were sound. Any minor guideline‐calculation slip was harmless in light of a valid alternative sentencing path explicitly stated by the judge. The sentences fell within the broad range of reasonableness given the severity and depravity of the Jacksons’ child‐abuse offenses.

3. Impact

United States v. Jackson reinforces and clarifies important sentencing doctrines for practitioners and lower courts:

It affirms that guideline enhancements based on judge‐found facts remain constitutional provided they do not raise statutory maxima or minima.
It cements DiFrancesco’s rule that no defendant acquires an expectation of finality in a sentence under appeal—even after service—and thus cannot invoke double jeopardy or due process to block resentencing.
It delineates how a district court should handle guideline miscalculations and establish valid alternative sentencing justifications under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).
By distinguishing vacatur from affirmance, it instructs sentencing courts that prior erroneous sentences impose no law‐of‐the‐case constraints on remand.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Statutory Maximum vs. Guidelines Range: The “statutory maximum” is the highest penalty Congress allows for a crime. The “Guidelines range” is a recommended sentencing bracket computed by judges. Judges may find facts to adjust the Guidelines range without infringing constitutional jury rights—so long as the final sentence stays within the statutory maximum.
Double Jeopardy and Finality: Double jeopardy forbids multiple punishments for the same offense after “final” judgment. However, if a sentence is under appeal, it is not yet “final,” so resentencing is permissible. Completing service of a appealed sentence does not make it final.
Law‐of‐the‐Case Doctrine: Under this rule, legal determinations made earlier in a case typically bind later stages. But when that earlier ruling is vacated on appeal, it ceases to have binding effect, and the court on remand may reevaluate the issue.
Harmless Error in Sentencing: If a court makes a minor mistake in calculating the Guidelines but clearly states it would have imposed the same sentence even under the correct Guidelines, the error is “harmless” and does not warrant reversal.

Conclusion

United States v. Jackson stands as a landmark Third Circuit decision on sentencing finality and the constitutional scope of judicial fact‐finding. It confirms that guideline enhancements based on judge‐found facts remain valid absent a statutory maximum increase, and it emphatically holds that sentences under appeal—served or not—do not crystallize into finality that triggers double jeopardy or due process protection. Furthermore, it clarifies best practices for harmless error review and the application of the law‐of‐the‐case doctrine on resentencing. As a result, this case will guide sentencing judges and appellate panels in countless future criminal proceedings.