United States v. Jerome Haynes

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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