USA V. ADAM HARRIS, No. 16-10382 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 11 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-10382 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00140-APG v. MEMORANDUM* ADAM MICHAEL HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 8, 2017** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Adam Michael Harris appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 22-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Harris contends that the term of supervised release is substantively * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). unreasonable in light of the fact that he is not amenable to supervision and has largely met the goals of supervised release, committing only “technical” violations. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873, 887 (9th Cir. 2012). The 22-month term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Harris’s past failures to comply with the requirements of supervision, even if “technical,” do not “obviate the need for further supervision,” but rather suggest that additional supervision may be necessary to facilitate Harris’s rehabilitation and protect the public. See United States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d 1033, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2003). AFFIRMED. 2 16-10382

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.