Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01679/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01679-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Haskins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 16, 2025 

Decided January 21, 2025 

Before

DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge

No. 24-1679 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOSEPH HASKINS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of 

Indiana, Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:21CR00305-001 

James Patrick Hanlon, 

Judge.

O R D E R

Joseph Haskins was convicted by a jury of possessing with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine and sentenced to 396 months’ imprisonment. He appeals, but his 

appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw. 

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of 

the case and addresses issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. 

Because the analysis appears thorough, and Haskins has not responded to counsel’s 

motion, see CIR. R. 51(b), we limit our review to the subjects that counsel raises. United 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1

Case: 24-1679 Document: 16 Filed: 01/21/2025 Pages: 3
No. 24-1679 Page 2 

States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014). We grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal. 

Police officers in Muncie, Indiana, received information in the summer of 2021 

that Haskins was dealing methamphetamine from his residence. They arranged two 

controlled buys. They then obtained a search warrant for Haskins’s home, where they 

found bags containing about 400 grams of methamphetamine, over $12,000 in cash 

(including marked bills), and two digital scales. They arrested Haskins and recovered 

his phone, which contained multiple text messages about selling methamphetamine. 

Haskins was charged soon thereafter with possessing with the intent to distribute over 

50 grams of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 

Haskins moved to suppress the evidence recovered during the searches. He 

argued that the affidavit for the warrant did not show probable cause because it lacked 

information about the confidential informant’s reliability. But the district judge

determined that the facts detailed in the affidavit about the two controlled buys of 

methamphetamine sufficiently established probable cause and did not require 

additional information about the confidential informant’s reliability. 

Haskins pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial. During a two-day trial, the 

jury heard testimony from five local and federal officers. Collectively, they testified 

about the search of Haskins’s home, his arrest, the contents of the cell phone, and 

expertise in drug trafficking. Haskins did not put on a defense. The jury found him 

guilty of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

The probation office prepared a presentence investigation report recounting 

Haskins’s offense conduct and criminal history. The PSR calculated a guidelines range 

of 360 months to life in prison (based on a total offense level of 37 and a criminal history 

category of VI). U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(a)(5), (c)(4), 4B1.1(a)–(b), 5A.

At the sentencing hearing, the district judge confirmed that there were no 

objections to the PSR and adopted its factual findings, offense level computation, and 

criminal history calculation. The judge then weighed the sentencing factors under 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), considering Haskins’s characteristics and the devastating effects 

methamphetamine has had on the community. The judge then sentenced him to 

396 months’ imprisonment with 5 years’ supervised release to follow.

In his Anders brief, counsel first considers but rejects arguing that Haskins could 

raise a nonfrivolous challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress based on the 

Case: 24-1679 Document: 16 Filed: 01/21/2025 Pages: 3
No. 24-1679 Page 3 

silence in the search warrant affidavit about the confidential informant’s reliability. We 

agree that this challenge would be frivolous. Probable cause for a search warrant is 

established based on a totality of the circumstances, United States v. Carswell, 996 F.3d 

785, 791 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)), and the details in 

the affidavit about the two controlled buys were sufficient to establish probable cause 

regardless of the reliability of the underlying tip from a confidential informant, 

see United States v. Haynes, 882 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2018). 

Next, counsel appropriately rejects any challenge to the district judge’s 

guidelines calculation. The judge properly calculated Haskins’s total offense level at 37, 

given his base offense level of 32, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5), (c)(4), increased by 5 levels 

because of his career offender status predicated on prior convictions for battery and 

narcotics dealing, see § 4B1.1(a), (b)(1). And the judge correctly assessed his criminal 

history category at VI based on the 17 points he incurred for his prior convictions. 

See § 4A1.1, 5A. 

We also agree with counsel that any challenge to the substantive reasonableness 

of Haskins’s within-guidelines sentence would be frivolous. The judge adequately 

justified the 396-month sentence based on the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

See United States v. Cook, 108 F.4th 574, 580 (7th Cir. 2024). The judge referred to 

Haskins’s history and characteristics (characterizing his criminal history as “atrocious” 

and his upbringing “reasonably normal”); the seriousness of the offense (viewing it as 

“an extremely serious offense” involving “an extremely horrible, dangerous drug”); the 

need to protect the public (concluding that “his track record demonstrates that the only 

way to stop him from dealing drugs, threatening people, unlawfully using guns, and 

shooting at people, is to have him incarcerated”); his potential need for medical care

(considering his history of substance abuse and possible undiagnosed mental health 

conditions); and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among similar 

defendants. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A), (2)(C), (2)(D), (6). 

Therefore, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

Case: 24-1679 Document: 16 Filed: 01/21/2025 Pages: 3