UNITED STATES v. HARRELL (2020)

Barry Lalane Harrell appeals the 24-month sentence of imprisonment imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider his history and characteristics, focused solely on his criminal history, and imposed a sentence above the advisory policy range without adequate justification.

The record reflects that the district court heard Harrell’s arguments for leniency based on his history and characteristics and implicitly considered those arguments but determined that the 24-month sentence was appropriate based on the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, in view of Harrell’s criminal history and supervised release violations. We must give due deference to the district court’s sentencing decision and decline to reweigh the applicable § 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

With respect to challenges to substantive reasonableness, we have routinely upheld revocation sentences exceeding the advisory policy range, even where, as here, the sentence equals the statutory maximum. United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence in this case was not an abuse of discretion. See id.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.