Opinion ID: 1348933
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Argument Preservation

Text: Haynes also argued that the district court erred in imposing a 60-month consecutive sentence for his firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) because he was already subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II). He concedes that United States v. Easter, 553 F.3d 519, 525-26 (7th Cir.2009), petition for cert. filed ( U.S. Mar. 26, 2009) (No. 08-9560), and petition for cert. filed ( U.S. May 20, 2009) (No. 08-10584), forecloses this argument. He now seeks to preserve the issue for review in the Supreme Court. The government submits that Haynes waived the argument by requesting the court to impose a consecutive five-year sentence. Haynes did not challenge whether a consecutive sentence was appropriate, but we do not understand him to have been affirmatively requesting such a sentence. His challenge was to the length of the sentence under § 924(c)the government argued for the seven-year minimumnot to whether a consecutive sentence was proper in the first instance. We find no waiver of an objection to the consecutive nature of the sentence; the argument was forfeited instead. Thus, Haynes has preserved the argument, although it is foreclosed by our binding precedent.