US v. Jerome Hayne

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00032-IMK-JSK-8 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999711204].. [15-4290]

Appeal: 15-4290

Doc: 20

Filed: 12/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4290

Doc: 20

Filed: 12/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

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).
no

meritorious

grounds

for

Counsel states that there are

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

possessed.”
(2014).

a

dangerous

U.S.

weapon

Sentencing

(including

Guidelines

a

Manual

firearm)

was

§ 2D1.1(b)(1)

“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

Appeal: 15-4290

Doc: 20

Filed: 12/03/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

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

or

was

otherwise

participants
“[A]

district

court’s

activity

involved

extensive.”

determination

that

five

USSG
a

§

or

more

3B1.1(b).

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

this concession.
applied

evidence

presented

at

sentencing

supports

Therefore, the district court appropriately

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

Appeal: 15-4290

Doc: 20

Filed: 12/03/2015

was served on Haynes.

Pg: 4 of 4

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