In United States v. Harris,
No. 18-15055 (July 1, 2020) (Grant, William Pryor, Jung (MD Fla.), the
Court held that the defendant’s sentence above the guideline range was not
procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
For the 922(g) offense, the
district court accepted the parties’ joint view that the guideline range was
33-41 months, rejecting the probation officer’s view that it was 92-115
months. However, the court varied upward
to 92 months. On appeal, the Eleventh
Circuit held that the district court adequately justified the variance,
emphasizing the defendant's criminal history and that the defendant’s firearm possession ultimately led to someone’s
death. The district court also considered the
defendant’s salutary post-offense conduct.
No more explanation was required.
The Eleventh Circuit also concluded that the 92-month sentence was not
substantively unreasonable because the sentencing court did not abuse its
discretion by giving great weight to the seriousness of the offense and
criminal history, but less weight to his post-offense conduct.
