US v. Jerome Haynes, No. 15-4290 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4290 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JEROME NAQUAN HAYNES, a/k/a Marlo,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 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 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 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
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.
