US v. Korlis Harri

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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