United States v. Abram Harri, No. 11-1914 (8th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court committed no procedural error at sentencing and the sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1914 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Abram Harris, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: September 2, 2011 Filed: September 19, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Abram Harris pleaded guilty to possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1). At sentencing, the district court1 declined a defense request for probation and imposed a sentence of 42 months in prison, within the undisputed advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, Harris s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), seeking to withdraw and arguing that the sentence was unreasonable, and that probation would have been more appropriate. 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. We conclude, though, that Harris has not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines-range prison sentence was substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness). We further conclude the district court committed no procedural error at sentencing and did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See id. (outlining steps in appellate review); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing procedural error). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we grant leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -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.