United States v. Jackson

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 21, 2026 · No. 24-4103

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions and life sentences of Nelson Evans, Kalub Shipman, Jaquate Simpson, and Landis Jackson arising from a drug-trafficking enterprise and murder-for-hire scheme. The court rejected challenges concerning sufficiency of the evidence, double jeopardy, suppression of GPS, pen-register, cell-site, and wiretap evidence, jury instructions, and other trial rulings.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Toby Heytens; Paul V. Niemeyer; Julia Smith Gibbons
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
January 21, 2026
Docket number
24-4103
Procedural posture
Appeal from district court convictions and sentences for multiple drug and murder-for-hire offenses.
Standard of review
De novo for legal conclusions; clear error for factual findings; abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings and jury instructions; plain error for unpreserved issues.
Precedential value
Published opinion, precedential
Parties
Nelson Evans, Kalub Shipman, Jaquate Simpson, Landis Jackson v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

double jeopardysuppression of evidencesearch and seizureconspiracyjury instructions

Practice areas

criminal lawconstitutional lawappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Jackson's convictions for participating in a continuing criminal enterprise and murder while engaged in such an enterprise
  2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Jackson's conviction for selling cocaine to Williams
  3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Shipman's conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine
  4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for murder-for-hire and conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire
  5. Whether convictions for both murder-for-hire and conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire violate the Double Jeopardy Clause
  6. Whether the district court properly denied motions to suppress GPS tracker data, pen register evidence, cell-site location information, and wiretap evidence
  7. Whether the district court properly admitted evidence of another murder-for-hire plot as intrinsic to the charged crimes
  8. Whether the district court properly refused requested jury instructions on multiple conspiracies and buy-sell transactions
  9. Whether Evans' statements to law enforcement were admissible under the Confrontation Clause
  10. Whether the district court erred by not severing Shipman's trial from Evans'
  11. Whether Count 9 was duplicitous

Holdings

  1. Sufficient evidence supported Jackson's convictions for participating in a continuing criminal enterprise and murder while engaged in such an enterprise.
  2. Convictions for both murder-for-hire and conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not.
  3. Statutory suppression is not an available remedy for a pen register statute violation when the relevant statutes do not provide for suppression.
  4. Under the federal wiretapping statute, the government need not establish probable cause as to all participants in a conversation; probable cause as to one participant is sufficient.
  5. A codefendant's statement only triggers Bruton's narrow rule if it facially incriminates the defendant; statements that incriminate inferentially through linkage to other evidence do not implicate Bruton.

Factual background

Defendants Simpson and Jackson ran a drug distribution organization. When customer Brandon Williams failed to pay for drugs, they offered defendant Shipman $10,000 to kill someone close to Williams. Shipman recruited his cousin Evans to assist. They traveled from North Carolina to Virginia and murdered Williams' aunt, Lillian Bond.

Procedural history

Defendants were convicted by a jury on all counts (including continuing criminal enterprise, murder-for-hire, conspiracy, drug distribution, and firearm offenses) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…