US v. Leandre Harwell, No. 08-4316 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4316 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LEANDRE EUGENE HARWELL, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00287-NCT-1) Submitted: October 10, 2008 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, April 7, 2009 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leandre Eugene Harwell appeals the ninety-four-month sentence he received after he pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm (2000). by a convicted felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) The district court also imposed a consecutive fourteen- month sentence for a supervised release violation. Harwell imposing an reasonable contends upward notice guideline range. that variance that it the district sentence might vary We affirm. court without above the erred giving by him sentencing However, the Supreme Court recently decided that an upward variance does not require notice under either Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) or Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 (1991). See Irizarry v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2198 (2008). We therefore affirm the judgment. * oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal before contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Because appellate counsel s brief is equivalent to a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Harwell was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. He did so, but did not raise any additional claims of error. We have examined the entire record for reversible error and found none. 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.