Darese Haile pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting four carjackings, each with a set of particular characteristics: each involved the carjacking of Lyft drivers where the assailants required each of their victims to strip naked. One of the assailants also brandished a firearm during each carjacking, and, during the third carjacking, one of the assailants struck the victim in the face with one.
Haile pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting each carjacking. Prior to sentencing, he objected to two enhancements recommended in his presentence investigation report: (a) a six-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) because an assailant used a firearm to strike the third Lyft driver; and (b) a two-level increase U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3)(A) because the same driver suffered an injury as a result of the strike. Minimizing his role in the carjackings, Haile argued that the referenced enhancements should not apply, arguing he did not brandish a firearm and that the District Court should give him a mitigating role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
The District Court overruled each of his objections and denied his request for a mitigating role reduction, holding that the Guidelines recommended a sentencing range of 121 to 151 months. Characterizing the carjackings at "particularly vicious," and citing the humiliation inflicted upon the Lyft drivers, the Court varied upward and sentenced him to 180 months in prison - the statutory maximum. Haile subsequently appealed and challenged both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
The Sixth Circuit upheld his sentence in a published opinion. It found no procedural error, noting that ample evidence supported the District Court's conclusion that Haile was one of the carjackers and that his role in the carjackings was not minimal. Accordingly, it found that the record supported each of the firearms-related enhancements, noting that, regardless of whether he or his partner assaulted the third driver, the assault was relevant conduct for the offense because it was "reasonably foreseeable" that his partner would brandish and use a firearm during the carjackings considering his previous connections to firearms and stolen vehicles.
The Court next rejected Haile's argument that the District Court erred by allegedly not explaining why it denied his request for a mitigating role reduction. Although brief, the Sixth Circuit found the District Court's explanation sufficient because the evidence was sufficient to show that Haile was "a main participant" in the carjackings.
Haile next claimed that the District Court failed to consider his age in imposing his sentence. Although Haile claimed it was substantive error - and subject to an abuse of discretion standard - and the Government claimed it was a procedural error subject to plain error review, the Sixth Circuit held the type of error was irrelevant because the District Court, in fact, considered Haile's age when it considered his personal history and characteristics.
The Sixth Circuit next rejected Haile's challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his above-Guidelines sentence. In doing so, it found the record adequately supported the District Court's conclusion the Section 3553 factors, in particular the vicious nature of the car jackings and the humiliation Haile and the other assailant caused their victims, supported a substantial upward variance.
The opinion in Haile indicates both trial and appellate counsel vigorously advocated for their client. Nevertheless, it reflects the substantial deference afforded District Court sentencing decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment