Precedents Cited and Their Role

• Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) – Framed standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness; emphasized abuse-of-discretion review of sentences and explained that appellate courts must ensure the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and explained the variance.
• United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) – Established plain-error review when a defendant fails to object to a procedural deficiency at sentencing.
• United States v. Taylor, 85 F.4th 386 (6th Cir. 2023) – Clarified review standards: de novo for Guidelines interpretations, clear error for fact findings; cited for deference to district courts on fact-bound determinations.
• United States v. Small, 988 F.3d 241 (6th Cir. 2021) – A defendant must do more than deny PSR facts; must produce some evidence to call facts into question to trigger Rule 32 fact-finding obligations.
• U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) and cases:
  • United States v. Catalan, 499 F.3d 604 (6th Cir. 2007) – Relevant conduct: co-participants’ acts in jointly undertaken activity can be attributed if reasonably foreseeable.
  • United States v. Williamson, 530 F. App’x 402 (6th Cir. 2013) – Brandishing by a co-actor can be foreseeable in robberies.
  • United States v. Clay, 90 F. App’x 931 (6th Cir. 2004) – Injury during an armed robbery can be reasonably foreseeable to co-participants.
  • United States v. Perales, 534 F. App’x 502 (6th Cir. 2013) – Assaults during jointly planned robberies are attributable to co-defendants.
  • United States v. Carson, No. 24-1731, 2025 WL 1627384 (6th Cir. June 9, 2025) – Recent confirmation that a co-conspirator’s firearm “use” can be foreseeable given the defendant’s involvement and firearm access.
• United States v. Louchart, 680 F.3d 635 (6th Cir. 2012), and United States v. House, 872 F.3d 748 (6th Cir. 2017) – A limited plea admission does not preclude the government from proving additional relevant conduct by a preponderance so long as the sentence remains within the statutory maximum.
• U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and cases:
  • United States v. Randolph, 794 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2015) – Clear-error review of role determinations.
  • United States v. Simpson, 138 F.4th 438 (6th Cir. 2025) – Clarifies review of role adjustments within the Sixth Circuit.
  • United States v. Daneshvar, 925 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 2019) – Reversal where district court made no factual determinations; contrasted here because the district court made extensive findings.
  • United States v. Matos Estrella, No. 24-3265, 2025 WL 1145214 (6th Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) – No reversible error for failing to recite each § 3B1.2 factor where the record otherwise reflects consideration.
  • United States v. Taylor, 800 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2015); United States v. Sarlog, 504 F. App’x 426 (6th Cir. 2012); United States v. Wagner, 2024 WL 328841 (6th Cir. Jan. 29, 2024) – Failure to object to adequacy of explanation triggers plain-error review.
• Mitigation arguments and explanation:
  • United States v. Sweeney, 891 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 2018); United States v. Hymes, 19 F.4th 928 (6th Cir. 2021) – Mitigation arguments must be addressed, but no point-by-point refutation is required; adequacy assessed from the transcript as a whole.
  • United States v. Gardner, 32 F.4th 504 (6th Cir. 2022); United States v. Brinda, 851 F. App’x 565 (6th Cir. 2021) – What matters is that the judge listened, understood, and considered the arguments.
  • United States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Jeter, 721 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. Chiolo, 643 F.3d 177 (6th Cir. 2011) – A general statement that the court considered the history and characteristics can suffice.
  • United States v. Johns, 65 F.4th 891 (6th Cir. 2023) – Discusses how multiple mitigation arguments fit within “history and characteristics.”
  • United States v. Flores-Nater, 144 F.4th 56 (1st Cir. 2025) – Out-of-circuit comparison emphasizing a dominant age-mitigation argument; distinguished in Haile.
• Substantive reasonableness:
  • United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) – Substantive reasonableness focuses on the weight given to § 3553(a) factors.
  • United States v. Thomas, 933 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2019) – No presumption against above-Guidelines sentences; highly deferential review.
  • Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) – Recognizes departures/variances when cases fall outside the Guidelines’ “heartland.”
  • United States v. Heard, 749 F. App’x 367 (6th Cir. 2018) – Courts may rely on conduct already reflected in the Guidelines to justify a variance.
  • United States v. Axline, 93 F.4th 1002 (6th Cir. 2024); Hymes, 19 F.4th at 935–36; United States v. Vance, 2024 WL 4867049 (6th Cir. Nov. 22, 2024) – Proper Guidelines calculation already addresses national disparity concerns; no duty to consult Sentencing Commission statistics before varying.

Legal Reasoning

1) Firearm and Bodily-Injury Enhancements (U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1)

The district court applied a five-level enhancement for brandishing/possessing a firearm in three attacks (§ 2B3.1(b)(2)(C)), a six-level enhancement for “otherwise used” in the third attack (§ 2B3.1(b)(2)(B)) when the victim was pistol-whipped, and a two-level enhancement for bodily injury in the third attack (§ 2B3.1(b)(3)(A)).

Haile argued he was merely a driver or facilitator for the first three events and only “more involved” in the fourth, suggesting the firearm enhancements should not attach to him or, at least, not at the “use” level. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s contrary factual finding: ample record evidence—police reports and victim statements describing two gun-wielding assailants; the fourth victim’s identification; phone records linking Haile to ride requests and locations; cell-site data; and recovery of numerous handguns and stolen vehicles at his residence—supported that Haile was one of the two carjackers at each event. That finding was not clearly erroneous.

The court further held that, even if Haile had not personally used or brandished a firearm, the enhancements were independently justified by the relevant-conduct rules in § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Given the jointly undertaken plan to carjack with firearms and Haile’s own admissions (including intent to cause serious bodily harm), it was reasonably foreseeable that his partner would brandish or use a firearm, and that bodily injury would occur during the third robbery. This line of reasoning tracks Sixth Circuit precedent (e.g., Williamson, Clay, Perales) and recent authority (Carson) treating firearm “use” by a co-actor as foreseeable where the defendant is intimately involved in planning and execution.

Finally, the court rejected the notion that the sentencing court was confined to the minimal conduct Haile admitted at his plea colloquy. Under Louchart and House, a district court may consider additional relevant conduct supported by a preponderance of evidence, provided the sentence stays within the statutory maximum—which it did.

2) Mitigating-Role Reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2)

Haile sought a mitigating-role reduction on the premise he was less culpable than the average participant. The district court rejected that premise because it found Haile was, in fact, one of the two carjackers each time. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviewed for clear error as to the factual finding and for plain error as to the adequacy of the court’s explanation (because Haile did not object to the explanation’s adequacy at sentencing).

The panel held there was no clear error in denying the reduction. The record supported the finding that Haile was a principal, not a peripheral player. As for the explanation, while brief, it was no plain error. By the time the court addressed mitigation, it had already made detailed factual findings inconsistent with a minor role. The Sixth Circuit distinguished Daneshvar (where the district court made no factual findings) and aligned with Matos Estrella in holding that explicit recitation of each § 3B1.2 factor is not required when the record demonstrates consideration.

3) Age-Based Mitigation and Adequacy of Explanation

Haile contended the court ignored his “youth and potential for rehabilitation.” The Sixth Circuit treated this as a procedural claim (failure to address a mitigation argument), though it noted the claim fails under either plain-error or abuse-of-discretion review.

The sentencing transcript showed that the district court considered Haile’s “history and characteristics,” including his dysfunctional upbringing and prior leniency (the “incredible break” he received due to his youth). The court explained why these factors did not outweigh the gravity of the offenses and the unique humiliation inflicted. Under Sweeney, Hymes, and Gardner, no point-by-point refutation is required; the record must simply make the consideration apparent. It did.

The Sixth Circuit distinguished the First Circuit’s Flores‑Nater, noting that Haile’s youth argument was one of several mitigation points under the “history and characteristics” umbrella and that the district court was not required to spotlight it independently where the transcript made its consideration clear.

4) Substantive Reasonableness and the Upward Variance

The court affirmed the upward variance to 180 months (the statutory maximum), emphasizing:

• The “vicious,” “serious,” and “life-threatening” nature of the repeated offenses involving firearms;
• The extraordinary humiliation—forcing victims to strip naked and leaving them exposed in public—which the district court found elevated the severity “up a degree” and outside the heartland;
• Haile’s disregard for a recent, unusually lenient sentence (“incredible break”) and the resulting need to protect the public and promote respect for the law;
• The district court’s reasoned application of § 3553(a) factors and robust explanation consistent with Gall and Kimbrough.

The panel rejected two common substantive attacks. First, it declined the “double-counting” objection: courts may consider conduct reflected in the Guidelines to support a variance (Heard), and here the humiliation factor was a non-Guidelines consideration that independently supported the variance. Second, it held the court had no duty to consult national sentencing statistics before varying, as proper Guidelines calculation already addresses disparity concerns (Hymes, Axline, Vance).

Impact and Practical Implications

A. Foreseeability and Firearm Enhancements

Haile reinforces that in robbery/carjacking conspiracies, co-participants’ firearm brandishing or “use” (including pistol-whipping) and resultant injuries will often be foreseeable to all involved, especially when:

• There is evidence of coordinated planning and repeated, similar modus operandi;
• The defendant’s own statements reveal an intent to inflict serious harm;
• Records link the defendant to arranging the ambush (e.g., ride-share requests) and to contemporaneous locations;
• Firearms are found in the defendant’s possession/control.

Defense counsel should anticipate that even “driver-only” narratives may not avoid § 2B3.1(b)(2) and (b)(3) enhancements if the record shows joint action and foreseeable violence.

B. Mitigating-Role Reductions

The opinion illustrates that a mitigating-role reduction under § 3B1.2 is difficult to obtain where the court finds the defendant to be one of the two primary actors. Counsel seeking a reduction should develop a record that the defendant is “substantially less culpable than the average participant” and must object specifically to any inadequacies in the court’s explanation to avoid plain-error review on appeal.

C. Age and Other Mitigation

Age remains a valid part of the § 3553(a) “history and characteristics,” but district courts are not obliged to address it separately if the transcript shows they considered the defendant’s personal characteristics holistically. Counsel should foreground why youth is the “dominant” mitigation theme if they wish to press a Flores‑Nater-type argument and should invite an on-the-record discussion to preserve the issue.

D. Upward Variances Based on Victim Humiliation

Haile’s most distinctive feature is its emphasis on victim humiliation as a non-Guidelines aggravator warranting a steep upward variance. For crimes involving degradation (e.g., forced nudity), courts may treat such facts as moving the case outside the Guidelines heartland, supporting major variances when persuasively explained.

E. Evidence at Sentencing and PSR Practice

The decision shows sentencing courts may rely on police reports, victim statements, and corroborating records under the preponderance standard. It also shows appellate restraint where the district court expressly declines to consider extra-record assertions (e.g., certain DNA/key fob facts the government advanced but the district court did not consider). Defendants must do more than deny PSR facts—they must present contrary evidence or reasons undermining reliability (Small).

F. Disparity Arguments and Statistics

The Sixth Circuit again declines to require district courts to consult Sentencing Commission national data before varying. Proper calculation of the Guidelines range itself serves disparity-avoidance goals, though courts remain free to consider data if helpful.