US v. Michael Harri
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:13-cr-00052-BO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999480800].. [14-4231]
Appeal: 14-4231
Doc: 30
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4231
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ANTONIO HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:13-cr-00052-BO-1)
Submitted:
November 20, 2014
Decided:
November 24, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dhamian A. Blue, BLUE STEPHENS & FELLERS LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-4231
Doc: 30
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Michael Antonio Harris pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine and was sentenced to
180 months of imprisonment.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the
following issues:
(1) whether Harris’ arraignment complied with
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; (2) whether the sentencing court properly
applied the career offender enhancement to Harris’ sentence; and
(3) whether the district court imposed a reasonable sentence.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, our review of Harris’ plea hearing reveals that
he knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty and that the proceeding
was
generally
conducted
in
compliance
Accordingly, we find no reversible error.
with
Rule
11.
See United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting that when
a
defendant
does
not
seek
to
withdraw
his
guilty
plea
or
otherwise preserve any allegation of Rule 11 error, this court
reviews his plea colloquy for plain error).
Harris’
error,
which
we
second
review
discretion standard.
(2007).
The
court
and
for
third
issues
reasonableness
allege
using
an
sentencing
abuse
of
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
first
reviews
for
significant
procedural
error, and if the sentence is free from such error, we then
2
Appeal: 14-4231
Doc: 30
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 3 of 4
consider substantive reasonableness.
Id. at 51.
Procedural
error includes improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory, failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to
adequately explain the selected sentence.
explain
the
sentence,
individualized
the
assessment
district
by
Id.
court
applying
the
564
F.3d
325,
328
(4th
Cir.
must
make
relevant
factors to specific circumstances of the case.
Carter,
To adequately
§
an
3553(a)
United States v.
2009).
Substantive
reasonableness is determined by considering the totality of the
circumstances,
and
if
the
sentence
is
within
the
properly
calculated Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption of
reasonableness.
United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295
(4th Cir. 2012).
We find no error in the district court’s imposition of
a
career
reveals
offender
that
enhancement,
Harris
had
at
as
our
review
least
two
prior
convictions needed for the enhancement.
Guidelines
sentence
Manual
was
§
4B1.1(a)
reasonable
as
(2013).
it
of
record
qualifying
drug
See U.S. Sentencing
Moreover,
was
the
within
we
the
find
the
correctly
calculated advisory Guidelines range of 155-188 months and was
imposed
after
the
sentencing factors.
court
expressly
considered
Strieper, 666 F.3d at 295.
3
the
§ 3553(a)
Appeal: 14-4231
Doc: 30
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 4 of 4
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case, including the issues raised in Harris’ pro se
supplemental brief, and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We therefore affirm Harris’ conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Harris, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Harris requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Harris.
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?