NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 30, 2018
Decided August 30, 2018
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
No. 17‐2664
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 14‐CR‐00463‐2
DEREK D. JACKSON,
Defendant‐Appellant. Andrea R. Wood,
Judge.
O R D E R
A jury found Derek Jackson guilty of one count of mail fraud in connection with
a scheme to defraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and four counts of presenting false claims to the
Internal Revenue Service, id. § 287. The district court sentenced him to 18 months’
imprisonment and ordered him to pay $342,328.45 in restitution—money that he had
obtained by filing false tax returns. Jackson filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed
counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw under Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jackson has not responded to counsel’s motion. See CIR.
R. 51(b). Because counsel’s analysis appears thorough, we limit our review to the
No. 17‐2664 Page 2
subjects that she discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014);
United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).
Counsel first considers whether Jackson could argue that the district judge erred
by admitting evidence of his co‐schemers’ conduct because, according to Jackson, he
did not know his three codefendants. But counsel appropriately concludes that the
argument would be pointless. Courts may admit against one defendant evidence of
another’s actions in furtherance of a mail‐fraud scheme, even if the two did not know
each other, “so long as the evidence established each defendantʹs own knowing
participation in the scheme.” United States v. Lanas, 324 F.3d 894, 900 (7th Cir. 2003);
see United States v. Adeniji, 221 F.3d 1020, 1027 (7th Cir. 2000). During trial, the district
judge preliminarily admitted such evidence because it indicated that the defendants
were joined in a common scheme. The evidence consisted of the defendants’ identical
submissions of false tax claims, their sharing of the tax refunds with Jackson, and their
similar practices of opening post office boxes and bank accounts to collect the refunds.
The judge revisited his preliminary ruling several times and correctly concluded that
the evidence was admissible because it proved that Jackson deliberately participated
with his codefendants in a common enterprise.
Moreover, even if the judge should not have admitted this evidence, it would be
frivolous to argue that its admission was harmful. Jackson benefitted from an
instruction that reminded the jury to consider each defendant separately and “to assess
each defendantʹs culpability based on his or her own actions.” Adeniji, 221 F.3d at 1027.
That limiting instruction cured any risk of undue prejudice. See United States v. Orlando,
819 F.3d 1016, 1023 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993)).
Counsel next considers whether Jackson could plausibly challenge certain jury
instructions. Jackson argued at trial that the word “scheme” should have been omitted
from several instructions, including one listing the charges in the indictment and
another defining a “scheme” under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. But counsel correctly states that
those challenges would be pointless on appeal because the district judge was
permissibly reciting the relevant statute to the jury, see United States v. Lahey, 55 F.3d
1289, 1297 (7th Cir. 1995), and properly stating the law when he defined a “scheme.”
See United States v. Dessart, 823 F.3d 395, 404 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United States
v. Fernandez, 282 F.3d 500, 509 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding similar jury instruction proper).
Counsel also considers whether Jackson could reasonably object to the “multiplicity” of
charges in the instructions and verdict form, given that the indictment charged only two
crimes (mail fraud and misleading information). But such an argument would misread
No. 17‐2664 Page 3
the indictment. Although the indictment charged Jackson with violating only two laws,
he and his codefendant were charged with doing so on eleven separate occasions,
yielding eleven distinct counts. So any argument about multiplicity would be frivolous.
Counsel next addresses whether Jackson could raise arguments related to his
status as a sovereign citizen. Jackson believes that he is immune from prosecution
because he is entitled to collect money “in trust” simply because of his birth. He also
believes that the district court lacked jurisdiction because he never entered a plea
(though his standby counsel entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf). We agree with
counsel that Jackson’s immunity and jurisdiction arguments would be just as frivolous
now as they were at trial. Jackson is a United States citizen charged with federal crimes,
and his sovereign‐citizen arguments would be “rejected summarily” if presented on
appeal. See United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011).
Jackson’s lawyer also contemplates a challenge to the denial of Jackson’s motion
for acquittal and his motion for a new trial, but correctly concludes that any argument
here would be pointless. These motions reprise Jackson’s arguments that the court
lacked jurisdiction and that the district judge erred in admitting evidence of his
codefendants. We already have explained why these arguments would be frivolous to
raise on appeal. They would not overcome the substantial burden of showing that the
evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 29; United States
v. Jones, 713 F.3d 336, 339 (7th Cir. 2013), or that it would be in the interest of justice to
grant a new trial, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 33.
Lastly, counsel concludes that any argument challenging Jackson’s sentence
would be frivolous. Jackson’s sentence is presumed reasonable because it is below the
correctly‐calculated guidelines range, and the record presents no basis to disturb that
presumption. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Poetz,
582 F.3d 835, 837 (7th Cir. 2009). The court adequately considered the factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Jackson’s refusal to accept responsibility, the nonviolent
nature of his crime, and his lack of a criminal history.
Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.