United States v. Korlis Harris , 693 F. App'x 200 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-4718
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KORLIS RAY HARRIS, a/k/a Big Bro,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cr-00113-D-1)
    Submitted: June 29, 2017                                          Decided: July 18, 2017
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Anne M. Hayes, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States
    Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L.
    Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Korlis Ray Harris appeals his 120-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and
    possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. Harris argues that the
    district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous
    weapon. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
    “In determining whether a district court properly applied the advisory [Sentencing]
    Guidelines, including 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. Layton, 
    564 F.3d 330
    , 334 (4th Cir. 2009). Having carefully reviewed the record, we
    conclude that sufficient evidence supported the district court’s finding that Harris was
    accountable for his coconspirator’s possession of a firearm in connection with the offense
    of conviction. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) & cmt. n.3,
    2D1.1(b)(1) (2015).
    Accordingly, we 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 the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-4718

Citation Numbers: 693 F. App'x 200

Judges: Gregory, King, Harris

Filed Date: 7/18/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024