USA v. Rome Lee Harmon, No. 04-15693 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 04-15693 FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT May 15, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-00154 CR-T-26-MAP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROME LEE HARMON, EMMA JEAN HARMON, Defendants-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (May 15, 2006) Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: After considering appellants briefs and entertaining oral argument, we find no merit in appellants arguments which are listed in the margin1 for the dismissal of the indictment, judgments of acquittal, or a new trial. AFFIRMED.2 In listing appellants arguments below, we refer to appellant Rome Lee Harmon as Rome, and Emma Jean Harmon as Emma. 1. Sections 841 and 846 of Title 21 are unconstitutional (Rome s issue IX); 2. Section 922(g) of Title 18 is unconstitutional (Rome s issue VII). 3. The evidence was insufficient to convict Rome of the November 26, 2003 marijuana offense (Rome s issue I). 4. The district court abused its discretion in denying appellants motions for mistrial. 5. The district court abused its discretion in refusing to continue appellants sentencing hearings. 6. The district court erred in not deciding sua sponte that appellants counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to challenge prior convictions that subjected appellants to mandatory life sentences. 7. Appellants life sentences constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. 8. The court committed Booker error in imposing life sentences based on convictions not alleged in the indictment or found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 Rome correctly states in his brief that the written judgment contains an error regarding Count Nine of the indictment; the judgment should indicate what the court stated in imposing judgment that he was convicted of a conspiracy offense rather than a substantive offense. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, the district court can correct the judgment for a clerical error, such as the error Rome cites, at any time. 2 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
