United States v. Jerome Haynes , 624 F. App'x 76 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-4290
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    JEROME NAQUAN HAYNES, a/k/a Marlo,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.    Irene M. Keeley,
    District Judge. (1:14-cr-00032-IMK-JSK-8)
    Submitted:   November 23, 2015            Decided:   December 3, 2015
    Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dorwin J. Wolfe, THE WOLFE LAW FIRM, Elkins, West Virginia, for
    Appellant. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Clarksburg, West Virginia; David J. Perri, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jerome Naquan Haynes appeals the district court’s judgment
    sentencing him to 121 months of imprisonment pursuant to his
    conviction      for      aiding     and    abetting    in    the   distribution     of
    oxycodone within 1000 feet of a protected location, in violation
    of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
     (2012); 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 860
    (2012).      Haynes’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967).                   Counsel states that there are
    no    meritorious        grounds    for    appeal    but    questions    whether   the
    district court clearly erred in applying sentencing enhancements
    for Haynes’ possession of a firearm and his managerial role in
    the offense.            Although advised of his right to do so, Haynes
    filed no pro se brief.             The Government declined to file a brief.
    In determining whether the district court properly applied
    a sentencing enhancement, this court “review[s] factual findings
    for     clear     error    and     legal     conclusions      de   novo.”      United
    States v. Adepoju, 
    756 F.3d 250
    , 256 (4th Cir. 2014).
    When the charged offense involves drug trafficking, courts
    should impose a two-level increase to the defendant’s offense
    level     “[i]f     a     dangerous       weapon    (including     a    firearm)   was
    possessed.”         U.S.     Sentencing      Guidelines      Manual     § 2D1.1(b)(1)
    (2014).     “The enhancement should be applied if the weapon was
    present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was
    connected with the offense.”               USSG § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A).
    2
    Courts should also impose a three-level enhancement where
    the defendant was “a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer
    or   leader)    and     the    criminal      activity    involved       five    or   more
    participants      or    was    otherwise      extensive.”         USSG   §     3B1.1(b).
    “[A]   district      court’s     determination        that    a   defendant      held     a
    leadership role . . . is essentially factual, and, therefore, is
    reviewed for clear error.”               United States v. Steffen, 
    741 F.3d 411
    , 414 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Here, we perceive no clear error in the district court’s
    application of either enhancement.                    Haynes admitted purchasing
    the firearms in question, and his codefendants testified that he
    purchased      the     firearms      with    oxycodone.           Similarly,      Haynes
    admitted exercising a leadership role in an extensive criminal
    operation,     and     the    evidence      presented    at   sentencing        supports
    this concession.             Therefore, the district court appropriately
    applied   enhancements         for   use     of   a   firearm     and    acting      in   a
    managerial position in an extensive criminal operation.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.                         This
    court requires that counsel inform Haynes, in writing, of his
    right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.         If Haynes requests that a petition be filed,
    but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
    then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
    representation.        Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
    3
    was served on Haynes.       We dispense with oral argument because
    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
    materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-4290

Citation Numbers: 624 F. App'x 76

Judges: Wilkinson, Wynn, Thacker

Filed Date: 12/3/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024