United States v. Ramel Harris

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 21, 2024
• Docket: 23-4336
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4336 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4336

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAMEL AHMAD HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00126-LCB-1)

Submitted: June 3, 2024 Decided: June 21, 2024

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ira Knight, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Margaret M. Reece, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4336 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Ramel Harris appeals the 42-month sentence the district court imposed following

Harris’s guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). Harris contends that the district court erroneously applied a two-level

enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight pursuant to U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 3C1.2 (2023). Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review

entails appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the

sentence. Id. at 51. In assessing procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the

district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range,

gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. “A

sentence based on an improperly calculated Guidelines range is procedurally

unreasonable.” United States v. Shephard, 892 F.3d 666, 670 (4th Cir. 2018). “In assessing

whether a district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, including its 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. Pena, 952 F.3d 503, 512

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[C]lear error exists only when the

reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been committed.” United States v. Slager, 912 F.3d 224, 233 (4th Cir. 2019)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4336 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

A defendant who “recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily

injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer” is subject

to a two-level enhancement in offense level. USSG § 3C1.2. Conduct is “reckless” when

the defendant “was aware of the risk created by his conduct and the risk was of such a

nature and degree that to disregard that risk constituted a gross deviation from the standard

of care that a reasonable person would exercise in such a situation.” USSG §§ 2A1.4 cmt.

n.1, 3C1.2 cmt. n.2. This “Guideline is based on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct

and does not require that his conduct actually caused physical harm.” United States v.

Dennings, 922 F.3d 232, 236 (4th Cir. 2019) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “At sentencing, the Government had to show by a preponderance of the evidence

that the [§ 3C1.2] enhancement applied.” United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 173

(4th Cir. 2020).

The district court did not clearly err in finding that the Government met its burden

of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Harris created a substantial risk of

death or serious injury to others in the course of fleeing from law enforcement. In reaching

this decision, the district court credited the testimony of an officer involved in the arrest

and also relied on police body camera footage. Additionally, the court noted the

circumstances surrounding Harris’ flight from police—officers were responding to a 911

call where a potential domestic violence situation was occurring with a firearm present.

Harris intentionally fled from law enforcement while armed with a loaded weapon,

repeatedly ignored commands to stop and show his hands, and then struggled with officers

in close quarters when he dove under the porch of a residence to avoid arrest. Furthermore,

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4336 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

in addition to police officers, other residents of the neighborhood were in the vicinity at the

time of Harris’s flight and were in danger of being harmed.

We therefore 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED