United States v. Jerell Haynie, No. 21-3654 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
A jury convicted Defendant of a conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d), based on his involvement with the Crips street gang. The Eighth Circuit court affirmed Defendant’s conviction but remanded for resentencing. On remand, the district court imposed a sentence of 71 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed the sentence. The principal dispute on appeal concerns whether the district court erred by failing to account for a term of imprisonment that Defendant served in Nebraska for state drug offenses that were committed in the course of the RICO conspiracy.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the court originally sentenced Defendant to 84 months’ imprisonment but effectively gave Defendant“credit” for the eleven-month period from July 2018 through May 2019, when he was serving federal and state sentences concurrently. The incremental punishment for the federal offense originally was 73 months imprisonment. On remand, the state sentence had been discharged, and the court imposed only 71 months imprisonment for the federal offense. Defendant thus received a lesser net punishment after the remand, and he did not lose any “credit” for time served in state custody.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Melloy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. For the court's prior opinion in the matter affirming defendant's conviction but remanding for resentencing, see U.S. v. Haynie, 8 F.4th 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2021). On remand, defendant argued the district court should adjust his sentence downward based on Guidelines Sec. 5G1.3(b) to account for the time he served in Nebraska on drug charges; at the time of sentencing, defendant had discharged his state time, and the Section was inapplicable to his case; with respect to defendant's claim the court should grant a downward departure based on Guidelines Sec. 2E1.1, the court's refusal to grant the departure is not reviewable; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.