USA v. Michael Harris

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Michael A. Harris. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-14854

Date Filed: 02/17/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-14854
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:12-cr-20396-KMM-3; 1:12-cr-20397-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL A. HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 17, 2017)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Harris appeals his two concurrent six-month sentences for violating
the terms of his supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his sentences are

Case: 16-14854

Date Filed: 02/17/2017

Page: 2 of 3

substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to properly consider the
relevant sentencing factors. Upon careful review of the parties’ briefs and the
record, we affirm Harris’s sentences.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence that is imposed after revocation
of supervised release under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v.
Cunningham, 607 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). The party
challenging the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is
unreasonable in the light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. See United States
v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We will vacate a
sentence only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the district
court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by
imposing a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by
the facts of the case. See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir.
2010) (en banc).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sentences at the
low end of the guideline range. The district court properly considered the relevant
factors. Specifically, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the
offense, Harris’s history and characteristics, and the need for deterrence when it
expressed its concern that more lenient approaches to past violations had not
prompted Harris to obey the terms of his supervised release. Harris argues that the
2

Case: 16-14854

Date Filed: 02/17/2017

Page: 3 of 3

sentence was unreasonable because it was “based on one use of alcohol.”
However, his argument ignores the fact that he had tested positive on numerous
past occasions. The district court did not commit a clear error of judgment in
weighing the sentencing factors. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190.
AFFIRMED.

3