Case: 18-15131 Date Filed: 04/03/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-15131; 18-15219
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:12-cr-20396-KMM-3; 1:12-cr-20397-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL A. HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 3, 2019)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-15131 Date Filed: 04/03/2019 Page: 2 of 4
Michael Harris is a federal prisoner serving a nine month sentence for
violating his supervised release. Harris argues on appeal that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable because it was too severe a punishment for his
violations. He argues that the court gave an undue amount of weight to his prior
supervised release violations, and that his punishment exceeds what is needed for
proper deterrence.
The underlying sentence resulted from two convictions for conspiring to
distribute controlled substances in 2012, for which he was sentenced to 70-months’
imprisonment initially, and which was reduced to 37-months’ imprisonment with 4
years of supervised release. The two instant violations were for failing to follow
instructions from the probation officer to submit to drug testing after an arrest in
2018. Prior to this violation, Harris had his supervised release revoked and was
sentenced to 6-months’ imprisonment in 2016 for similar violations.
If a district court finds that a defendant violated a condition of his supervised
release, the court may revoke the supervised release and impose a prison term.
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). We review that revocation on appeal for an abuse of
discretion, and the sentence imposed upon the revocation for reasonableness.
United States v. Vandergrift,
754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). A district
court abuses its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence
when it (1) fails to consider relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2)
2
Case: 18-15131 Date Filed: 04/03/2019 Page: 3 of 4
gives an improper or irrelevant factor significant weight, or (3) commits a clear
error of judgment by balancing the proper factors unreasonably. United States v.
Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary to comply with the purposes” listed in § 3553(a). United States v. Nagel,
835 F.3d 1371, 1376 (11th Cir. 2016). The party challenging the sentence bears
the burden of showing the sentence’s unreasonableness in light of the record and
the § 3553(a) factors. Id. Those factors include the nature and circumstances of
the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need to deter
criminal conduct and protect the public, the kinds of sentences available, and the
applicable guidelines range.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court is permitted to
attach great weight to one § 3553(a) factor over others. United States v.
Overstreet,
713 F.3d 627, 638 (11th Cir. 2013). We will not second guess the
weight that the district court gives to a § 3553(a) factor if the sentence is
reasonable in light of all the circumstances. United States v. Pugh,
515 F.3d 1179,
1191 (11th Cir. 2008).
Harris’s sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court considered
the nature and circumstances of the release violations, Harris’s history, and the
need for deterring Harris’s continued violations. The court’s finding that Harris
continuously disregarded his conditions of supervised release is supported by the
3
Case: 18-15131 Date Filed: 04/03/2019 Page: 4 of 4
record—he tested positive for alcohol at least four times and refused to comply
with his probation officer’s instructions at least five times. We are unable to
conclude that a nine month sentence followed by 24 additional months of
supervised release lies outside the range of reasonable sentences given these facts.
Furthermore, the sentence is within the guideline range of six to twelve months. In
such a circumstance, we ordinarily expect the sentence to be reasonable. Nagel,
835 F.3d at 1377. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4
