US v. Daniel Harri

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to file [999794611-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999774845-2] Originating case number: 2:14-cr-00076-MSD-DEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999871657].. [15-4451]

Appeal: 15-4451

Doc: 89

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4451

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL CHASE HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:14-cr-00076-MSD-DEM-1)

Submitted:

June 10, 2016

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 28, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory B. English, ENGLISH LAW FIRM, PLLC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Elizabeth M. Yusi, Assistant United States Attorney,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4451

Doc: 89

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Daniel

Chase

Harris

appeals

his

600-month

sentence

following jury convictions for 13 counts of production of child
pornography,

6

commerce

entice

to

counts
a

of

use

minor

of
to

a

facility

engage

in

of

interstate

criminal

sexual

activity, 7 counts of receipt of child pornography, 2 counts of
transportation

of

child

pornography,

possession

of

pornography, and 2 counts of obstruction of justice.

child
Harris

also challenges the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Crim.
P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that there was
insufficient

evidence

to

sustain

two

of

his

convictions.

Finding no error, we affirm.
First, we find no error in the district court’s denial of
Harris’

motion

challenging
burden.”
2007).

the

for

judgment

sufficiency

of
of

acquittal.
the

evidence

“A
faces

defendant
a

heavy

United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir.
“A jury’s verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is

substantial evidence in the record to support it.”

Id. at 244.

Evidence is substantial if, in the light most favorable to the
government, “there is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact
could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion
of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Id. at 245.

Because we find that the evidence at trial was sufficient to

2

Appeal: 15-4451

Doc: 89

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

support the jury’s verdict, we conclude that the district court
did not err in denying Harris’ Rule 29 motion.
We next turn to Harris’ sentence, which we review for both
procedural and substantive reasonableness “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.”
38, 41 (2007).

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

We must ensure that the district court committed

no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating
the Guidelines range.

Id. at 51.

If there is no significant

procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive
reasonableness

under

“the

totality

of

the

circumstances,

including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.”
Id.

We presume that a sentence below a properly calculated

Guidelines range is reasonable.

United States v. Louthian, 756

F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
A defendant can rebut this presumption only “by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.”
Harris

concedes

Id.
that

the

district

court

did

not

err

in

calculating an advisory Guidelines range of life imprisonment,
but he contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that Harris has not made
the showing necessary to rebut the presumption that his belowGuidelines sentence is reasonable.

3

Appeal: 15-4451

Doc: 89

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We deny Harris’ motions to appoint counsel and for leave to file
a pro se supplemental brief.

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