United States v. Dameon Harris

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: May 4, 2020
• Docket: 19-3452
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-3452 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff Appellee

v.

Dameon Harris

Defendant Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo ____________

Submitted: April 29, 2020 Filed: May 4, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Dameon Dariyus Harris appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. Harris’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. This court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“it will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence – whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range – as substantively unreasonable”). The record reflects that the revocation sentence was within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony), (b)(2) (statutory maximum supervised release term for Class C offense of conviction is 3 years), (h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term authorized by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms). The court stated it had considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor when sentencing defendant upon revocation; all that is required is consideration of relevant matters and some reason for court’s decision).

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________

-2-