USA v. Michael Harrison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41587 Affirmed ] Judge: FPB , Judge: EBC , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 10/20/2017 for Appellant Michael Ray Harrison [16-41587]

Case: 16-41587

Document: 00514176031

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/29/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-41587
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
September 29, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MICHAEL RAY HARRISON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:05-CR-70-1
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Michael Ray Harrison appeals the 120-month within-guidelines
sentence imposed upon resentencing for possession of a firearm by a felon. The
district court previously granted Harrison’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and
vacated Harrison’s original 327-month sentence under the Armed Career
Criminal Act in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015).
Harrison now argues that his 120-month sentence is unreasonable. In support

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 16-41587

Document: 00514176031

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/29/2017

No. 16-41587
of his argument, he asserts that the district court imposed the maximum
sentence because the court did not understand the effect of Johnson; that the
district court “did not understand [its] authority to order the sentence to be
served concurrently with [his] state sentence;” and that the district court failed
to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and ignored his mitigation
arguments.
Harrison’s arguments are unsupported by the record and do not show
that his within-guidelines sentence fails to account for a factor that should
receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper
factor, or represents a clear error of judgment by the district court in balancing
the sentencing factors. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.
2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008).
The district court noted that it had considered the sentencing factors set forth
in § 3553(a) and that the sentence was appropriate in light “of the nature and
circumstances of the offense” and Harrison’s “extensive criminal history” and
would “serve as just punishment, promote respect for the law, and deter future
violations of the law.”

Given the deference accorded the district court’s

sentencing determinations, we will not reweigh the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. See United States v. Rodriguez-Bernal, 783 F.3d 1002, 1008 (5th Cir.
2015).
AFFIRMED.

2