US v. Korlis Harri


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00113-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000120003].. [16-4718]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4718 Doc: 40 Filed: 07/18/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4718 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KORLIS RAY HARRIS, a/k/a Big Bro, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cr-00113-D-1) Submitted: June 29, 2017 Decided: July 18, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anne M. Hayes, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4718 Doc: 40 Filed: 07/18/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Korlis Ray Harris appeals his 120-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. Harris argues that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. “In determining whether a district court properly applied the advisory [Sentencing] Guidelines, including application of any sentencing enhancements, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that sufficient evidence supported the district court’s finding that Harris was accountable for his coconspirator’s possession of a firearm in connection with the offense of conviction. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) & cmt. n.3, 2D1.1(b)(1) (2015). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 2

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?