United States v. Willie Haynes, No. 09-3432 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case- Anders. Discretionary decision not to grant downward departure is unreviewable and sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3432 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Willie B. Haynes, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: March 3, 2010 Filed: March 8, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. After Willie Haynes pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, the District Court1 varied below the advisory Guidelines sentencing range triggered by Haynes s career-offender status and sentenced him to 188 months in prison and eight years of supervised release. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.738 (1967), counsel moves to withdraw and argues that the District Court erred at sentencing by denying Haynes s 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. motion for a departure or variance to 120 months in prison. Haynes has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We do not review the District Court s discretionary decision not to grant a downward departure under section 4A1.3 of the sentencing Guidelines, see United States v. Butler, No. 09-1137, 2010 WL 431720, at *9 (8th Cir. Feb. 9, 2010), and the Court s sentence is not an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002 03 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 913 (2005). Further, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for review. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
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.
