USA V. ERIC HARRIS, No. 16-10402 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 3 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS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. 16-10402 D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00342-GMN v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC MICHAEL HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Eric Michael Harris appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-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 he is not amenable to supervised release due to his * 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). inability to adhere to mental health treatment and medication, and consequently, the district court abused its discretion by imposing continued supervision as part of his supervised release revocation sentence. The 12-month term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to rehabilitate Harris and protect the public. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Harris’s argument that he is unamenable to supervision does not render the sentence substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A violation of the conditions of supervised release does not obviate the need for further supervision, but rather confirms the judgment that supervision was necessary.”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-10402

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.