UNITED STATES v. HARRIS (2020)

[Unpublished]

Dameon Dariyus Harris appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court ¹ imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Harris’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.