United States of America v. Michael Jaisyn Haythorn

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3371
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael Jaisyn Haythorn
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: May 7, 2025
Filed: May 12, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Haythorn appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 following
this court’s remand for resentencing on his conviction for a being a felon in
1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

possession of a firearm. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. In a pro se
brief, Haythorn also challenges the reasonableness of the sentence, and additionally
argues that his conviction was unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol
Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and that the district court erred by assessing
criminal history points for a 2013 Illinois cannabis conviction and by imposing an
enhancement for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences
are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives
significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment
in weighing appropriate factors). We also conclude Haythorn’s remaining pro se
arguments do not warrant reversal. This court has rejected the same constitutional
challenge he raises as to his conviction. See United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th
1120, 1126-27 (8th Cir. 2024). Haythorn’s argument regarding his cannabis
conviction lacks merit, as there is no dispute that the conviction was not expunged
at the time of sentencing. See United States v. Martinez-Cortez, 354 F.3d 830, 832
(8th Cir. 2004). Finally, the district court did not err in assessing the enhancement
for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense. See USSG
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); Iowa Code § 719.1(1)(a), (f).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --