US v. Stevenson Harrison, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00015-JPJ-PMS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999879300].. [15-4679]

Appeal: 15-4679

Doc: 23

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4679

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVENSON GILBERTO HARRISON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:15-cr-00015-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted:

May 31, 2016

Decided:

July 6, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy C. Dickenson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Kevin
L. Jayne, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4679

Doc: 23

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Stevenson

Gilberto

Harrison,

Jr.,

appeals

his

60-month

prison sentence after pleading guilty to failing to register as
a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (2012).

The

district court sentenced him above his advisory Guidelines range
of 30 to 37 months.

On appeal, Harrison contends his sentence

is unreasonable, excessive, and greater than necessary to comply
with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012).

We affirm.

We review “the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) using an abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of
‘whether

[the

sentence

is]

inside,

just

significantly outside the Guidelines range.’”

outside,

or

United States v.

Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).

We “must first ensure that the

district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as failing to . . . adequately explain the chosen sentence —
including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines
range.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

reasonable,
“tak[ing]

we
into

consider
account

If the sentence is procedurally

its

the

substantive

totality

of

the

reasonableness,
circumstances,

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

If the sentence is outside the Guidelines range, we “may

consider

the

extent

of

the

deviation,

2

but

must

give

due

Appeal: 15-4679

Doc: 23

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a)
factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”

Id.

The district court “must make an individualized assessment
based

on

the
the

apply[ing]

facts

presented

relevant

when

§ 3553(a)

imposing

factors

a

to

sentence,

the

specific

circumstances of the case and the defendant, and must state in
open

court

sentence.”

the

particular

Lymas,

781

quotation marks omitted).

F.3d

reasons
at

supporting

113

its

(citation

and

chosen
internal

“In imposing a variance sentence, the

district court must consider the extent of the deviation and
ensure

that

the

justification

is

significantly

support the degree of the variance.”
quotation marks omitted).

compelling

to

Id. (citation and internal

“[A] district court’s explanation of

its sentence need not be lengthy, but the court must offer some
individualized

assessment

justifying

the

sentence

imposed

and

rejection of arguments for a higher or lower sentence based on
§ 3553.”

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The “court’s stated rationale must be tailored to the particular
case

at

review.”

hand

and

adequate

to

permit

meaningful

appellate

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Harrison’s
sentence is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances,
and the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in
sentencing him above his Guidelines range.
3

The court made an

Appeal: 15-4679

Doc: 23

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

individualized assessment based on the facts presented, applied
the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of
the

case

and

the

defendant,

and

adequately

particular reasons supporting its sentence.

explained

the

Among other things,

the court found that Harrison’s offense was particularly serious
because it was repetitive, as he had previously been convicted
of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2250, and he had no excuse for the
offense.

The court also found that a sentence in the Guidelines

range was not adequate to protect the public from further crimes
of the defendant and to deter him from further criminal conduct.
We

therefore

reasonable
sentence.

give

due

decision

deference

that

the

to

the

§ 3553(a)

court’s
factors

reasoned

and

justified

the

See United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 367

(4th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4