US v. John Harmon, No. 13-4587 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4587 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN THOMAS HARMON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:12-cr-00862-GRA-1) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: February 5, 2014 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Thomas Harmon appeals the twenty-four-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to failure to properly register as a sex offender after traveling from Georgia to South Carolina, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) (2012). On appeal, Harmon s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. Harmon was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. Finding no error, we affirm. The sole issue raised in the Anders brief is whether Harmon s sentence was reasonable. In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the district court did not commit any significant procedural error, such as failing to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 Once we have determined that there is no procedural error, we must consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, tak[ing] circumstances. appropriate Id. Guidelines into account the totality of the If the sentence imposed is within the range, we 2 consider it presumptively reasonable. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). The presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th 2006) Cir. review, we procedural (internal conclude or that substantive month sentence. quotation the marks district error in omitted). court imposing Upon committed the no twenty-four- United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Harmon, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme review. If Harmon Court requests counsel believes that counsel may in move representation. of such this the that a United a petition petition court for States be would leave for to further filed, be but frivolous, withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Harmon. 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 3
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.
