IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60096

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IVORY LEE HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:16-CR-30-4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ivory Lee Harris appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea 

conviction for conspiracy to commit fraud with immigration documents. The 

district court sentenced him above the guidelines range of 12 to 18 months of 

imprisonment to 42 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised 

release. Harris contends that his sentence is substantively and procedurally 

unreasonable and that the Government breached the plea agreement.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60096 Document: 00514262459 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2017
No. 17-60096

2

The district court gave a “thorough justification” for the variance in this 

case. United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 344 (5th Cir. 2011). The district 

court cited the scope of the scheme, Harris’s status as a police officer, the 

importance of the false police reports created by Harris to the scheme, Harris’s 

use of an unwitting police officer and failure to vet the visa applicants, and the 

harm done to the City of Jackson and its police department. The extent of the 

variance, 24 months above the guidelines maximum of 18 months, is within 

the range of variances we have upheld. See id. at 345. Given the significant 

deference that is due to a district court’s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and the 

district court’s reasons for its sentencing decision, Harris has not 

demonstrated that the sentence is substantively unreasonable, see McElwee, 

646 F.3d at 344-45.

Harris waived by virtue of inadequate briefing his claim that the district 

court failed to adequately explain the sentence. See United States v. Scroggins, 

599 F.3d 433, 446-67 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 

254 (5th Cir. 2010). Even if this claim is not waived, it fails under the abuseof-discretion standard of review. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The district court 

provided a “compelling” justification for the variance by citing the aggravating

factors that it found warranted a sentence above the guidelines range. See

United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). 

At sentencing, the Government complied with its promise in the plea 

agreement to “recommend that the Court impose a sentence within the lower 

25% of the applicable range.” No reasonable reading of the plea agreement 

would prohibit the Government from arguing on appeal that the aboveguidelines sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Cantu, 185 F.3d 298, 

304 (5th Cir. 1999). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-60096 Document: 00514262459 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2017