USA V. JOSEPH JAYNE, JR., No. 16-30147 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-30147 D.C. No. 6:15-cr-00011-CCL v. MEMORANDUM* JOSEPH DEAN JAYNE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Charles C. Lovell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 11, 2017** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. Joseph Dean Jayne, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 150-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Jayne contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement for his leadership role in the offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). We review a district court’s determination that a defendant was an organizer or leader for purposes of applying a sentence enhancement for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The undisputed facts in the presentence report reflect that Jayne procured the drugs from suppliers for others to transport and distribute, and had another co-conspirator act as his “muscle.” This evidence supported a finding that Jayne had “the ability and influence necessary to coordinate the activities of others to achieve the desired result, whether or not [he had] a superior rank in a criminal hierarchy.” United States v. Doe, 778 F.3d 814, 824 (9th Cir. 2015). AFFIRMED. 2 16-30147

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.