United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 21-3475

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Dameon Harris

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ 

Submitted: June 13, 2022

Filed: June 30, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In 2015, Dameon Harris pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted 

felon and an unlawful drug user in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (3) and 

was sentenced to a prison term followed by a term of supervised release. After 

completing his prison term, Harris violated the conditions of his supervised release. 

Accordingly, his supervised release was revoked, and he was sentenced to a new 
-2- 

prison term followed by another term of supervised release. After completing his 

second prison term, Harris again violated the conditions of his supervised release. 

His supervised release was again revoked, and he was sentenced to a third prison 

term followed by yet another term of supervised release. After completing his third 

prison term, Harris again violated the conditions of his supervised release. This time, 

his supervised release was not revoked but instead was modified to include 

additional conditions. A few months later, the Government sought further 

modifications based on additional violations. Prior to a hearing on the matter, a drug 

test indicated that Harris had used marijuana and lied to his probation officer—two 

more violations. The Government responded by replacing its request for 

modification of Harris’s supervised release with a request for revocation. 

At the revocation hearing, the district court1 found that Harris had violated the 

conditions of his supervised release. After calculating an advisory sentencing 

guidelines range of 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment, the district court imposed a 

sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment with no term of supervised release to follow. 

Harris appeals, arguing that this sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

We review for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hall, 931 F.3d 694, 

696 (8th Cir. 2019). A revocation sentence should be sufficient but no greater than 

necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors referenced in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e). See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 589 U.S. ---, 140 S. Ct. 762, 

765-66 (2020). The district court’s discretion in weighing these factors is “wide.” 

United States v. Boelter, 806 F.3d 1134, 1136 (8th Cir. 2015). Consequently, it is 

“unusual” for us to conclude that a revocation sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. United States v. Woodard, 675 F.3d 1147, 1152 (8th Cir. 2012).

 “This is not the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence . . . as 

substantively unreasonable.” See United States v. Kocher, 932 F.3d 661, 664 (8th 

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Iowa. 
-3- 

Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). When a defendant has repeatedly 

violated the conditions of his supervised release, “the history and characteristics of 

the defendant,” § 3553(a)(1), and the need “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal 

conduct,” § 3553(a)(2)(B), may weigh in favor of a substantial prison sentence. See, 

e.g., United States v. Lacy, 877 F.3d 790, 792 (8th Cir. 2017). That is the case here, 

where Harris’s numerous violations “showed he was not amenable to supervised 

release.” See United States v. Smith, 29 F.4th 397, 399 (8th Cir. 2022) (per curiam). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a within-guidelines 

revocation sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. See id.; Kocher, 932 F.3d at 664 

(“We have frequently upheld revocation sentences that varied upward from the 

advisory guidelines range because defendant was a recidivist violator of supervised 

release conditions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Johnson, 

827 F.3d 740, 745 (8th Cir. 2016) (concluding that a revocation sentence was 

substantively reasonable in part because of the defendant’s “multiple [supervisedrelease] violation reports”); United States v. Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 608-09 (8th Cir. 

2009) (concluding that a revocation sentence was substantively reasonable in part 

because the defendant had “repeatedly violated the conditions of his supervised 

release”).

Accordingly, we affirm Harris’s revocation sentence.

______________________________