[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-15055

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:18-cr-00149-LSC-CSC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

OLANDO EARL HARRIS, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________

(July 1, 2020)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, GRANT, Circuit Judge, and JUNG,

*

District Judge.

GRANT, Circuit Judge:

* Honorable William Jung, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting 

by designation.

Case: 18-15055 Date Filed: 07/01/2020 Page: 1 of 6
2

Olando Harris, Jr. appeals the procedural and substantive reasonableness of 

his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1). Because Harris’s underlying offense conduct led to someone’s death,

the district court imposed a 92-month sentence—well above the Sentencing 

Guidelines range of 33–41 months—to reflect the seriousness of his actions. 

Harris argues that the district court did not adequately explain its deviation from 

the Guidelines. Additionally, he says that in light of his exemplary post-offense 

behavior, his lengthy sentence was greater than necessary to comply with the 

sentencing purposes identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). We disagree. Though 

the district court could have chosen to impose a sentence in keeping with the 

Guidelines, the court’s imposition of a higher penalty was not outside its 

significant discretion. 

I.

Early one evening, for reasons unknown, Harris had a confrontation with 

Terius Gillum in the Smiley Court neighborhood of Montgomery, Alabama. 

Harris pulled out a .357 magnum revolver, which he had purchased on the street a 

few days before, and fired at Gillum’s feet. Gillum returned fire as he retreated in 

the direction of a gang called the CBM Young-ins. Harris continued shooting 

while he ran in the opposite direction.

Predictably, the gunfight drew the attention of the nearby gang members, 

who were standing across the street from the Money Team gang. The rival gangs

began shooting and, in the ensuing gunfire, four people (including Harris) were 

Case: 18-15055 Date Filed: 07/01/2020 Page: 2 of 6
3

injured and one, Rodriquez Lamar Smith, was killed. There is no reliable evidence 

that one of Harris’s bullets killed Smith.

The United States charged Harris with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Just 

a few weeks later, Harris signed a plea agreement. He and the government both 

agreed that the offense conduct was most analogous to the Guidelines offense of 

aggravated assault, resulting in a sentencing range of 33–41 months. The 

probation officer had a different view, and found that the appropriate crossreference offense was not aggravated assault, but voluntary manslaughter. Based 

on the offense conduct, Harris’s acceptance of responsibility, and his criminal 

history—which included adult convictions for recklessly evading arrest, theft, and 

burglary—the probation officer calculated that Harris’s offense level was 26 and 

criminal-history category was IV. That equates to a Guidelines range of 92–115 

months.

While indicating some disapproval of the agreement between Harris and the 

government, the sentencing court ultimately went along with it. Based on that 

agreement, the court calculated an offense level of 16 with a Guidelines range of 

33–41 months. The government then asked for a sentence within the middle of the 

Guidelines range. Even so, expressing a belief that “the sentence is way under 

provided for by the [G]uidelines calculation,” the court imposed a 92-month 

sentence, noting that the sentence imposed was still below the statutory maximum 

of 120 months. Harris now appeals.

Case: 18-15055 Date Filed: 07/01/2020 Page: 3 of 6
4

II.

We review the reasonableness of sentencing decisions for abuse of 

discretion. See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188 (11th Cir. 2010) (en 

banc).

III.

A.

A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court commits a 

significant procedural error, such as “failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors” or 

“failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.”1

 Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If a court imposes an above-Guidelines sentence, it should 

“ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the 

variance.” Id. at 50. Major departures will require more explanation than minor 

ones. See id. Still, a sentencing court is not required to “state on the record that it 

has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the 

§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 

2009) (citation omitted). And in all cases, the appealing party bears the burden of 

showing that the district court’s sentence is “unreasonable in light of the record and 

1 Section 3553(a) directs the court to consider: (1) “the nature and circumstances of the offense 

and the history and characteristics of the defendant”; (2) “the need for the sentence” to “reflect 

the seriousness of the offense,” “promote respect for the law,” “provide just punishment for the 

offense,” “afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” “protect the public from further 

crimes of the defendant,” and “provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational 

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner”; (3) “the 

kinds of sentences available”; (4) “the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established” 

for “the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set 

forth in the guidelines”; (5) “any pertinent policy statement”; (6) “the need to avoid unwarranted 

sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 

similar conduct”; and (7) “the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.”

Case: 18-15055 Date Filed: 07/01/2020 Page: 4 of 6
5

the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 

2010). 

The district court adequately explained its chosen sentence. First, the court 

took into account Harris’s “extensive record,” which included multiple convictions 

for violent crimes. The court also emphasized that Harris started a violent 

confrontation that led to a death: “he was the one who pulled out the firearm.” 

Finally, the court acknowledged that it had considered Harris’s salutary postoffense conduct. No more was needed. 

Given the court’s adequate explanation, we have no need to probe further. 

The fact that Harris’s 92-month sentence is at the bottom of the Guidelines range 

that the probation officer would have applied—under a sentencing scenario the 

court rejected—does not change this calculus. And neither the sentencing court’s

verbalized skepticism of the plea agreement, nor an above-Guidelines sentence, 

invite us to conclude that the court implicitly rejected the plea agreement that it 

explicitly accepted.

B.

To find a district court’s sentence substantively unreasonable, we must be 

“left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear 

error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that 

lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” 

Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190 (citation omitted). The defendant “bears the burden of 

demonstrating that his total sentence is unreasonable.” United States v. Covington, 

565 F.3d 1336, 1346–47 (11th Cir. 2009).

Case: 18-15055 Date Filed: 07/01/2020 Page: 5 of 6
6

Harris argues that the court impermissibly relied on his criminal history and 

the seriousness of the offense conduct while “overlook[ing] numerous mitigating 

circumstances” that bear on the other § 3553(a) factors. For instance, Harris says 

that the court should have considered his marriage, four children, long-term 

employment, and law-abiding conduct since the 2015 shooting. The first problem 

with Harris’s argument is that the district court specifically said that it considered 

the recent turnaround in Harris’s behavior. But even if we were giving his good 

post-indictment choices fresh consideration, it would not give us a “definite and 

firm conviction” that Harris’s sentence was more than necessary to achieve the 

sentencing goals of § 3553(a). The weight given to each factor is committed to the 

sentencing court’s sound discretion. United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 

1309 (11th Cir. 2016). We cannot see how it was an abuse of discretion to give 

great weight to Harris’s criminal history and the seriousness of the offense conduct

while giving relatively less weight to his post-offense conduct.

IV.

We have no reason to question the evidence offered about Harris’s new 

approach to life. But we also have no reason to think that the district court failed 

to apply the § 3553(a) factors, failed to adequately explain its chosen sentence, or 

failed to choose a sentence inside the bounds of reasonableness. That means 

Harris has not shown that his sentence is procedurally or substantively 

unreasonable, so we affirm the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-15055 Date Filed: 07/01/2020 Page: 6 of 6