2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-16-2010

USA v. Maurice Harper

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1714

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Maurice Harper" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 73.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/73
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 10-1714

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MAURICE HARPER,

 Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 97-cr-00572)

District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 14, 2010

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: December 16, 2010)

____________

OPINION OF THE COURT

____________

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Maurice Harper appeals his judgment of sentence following the District Court’s 

determination that he committed Class A violations of his supervised release. We will 

affirm.
2

I

Because we write for the parties, we recount only the essential facts and procedural 

history. Harper’s term of supervised release began on June 6, 2008, upon his completion 

of a lengthy prison sentence for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (carjacking) and 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c) (carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence).

On March 19, 2009, the Philadelphia Police Department arrested Harper for 

manufacturing, delivery, possession with intent to distribute, and possession of cocaine 

base. Five days later, Harper appeared for a narcotics screening and tested positive for 

cocaine metabolite. In light of Harper’s arrest and failed drug test, on March 31, 2009, 

the Probation Office notified the District Court that Harper had committed, respectively, 

Grade A and Grade C violations of supervised release.

On August 25, 2009, Harper was arrested by the Philadelphia Police Department 

and charged with criminal conspiracy, carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a 

firearm in Philadelphia, violation of the Controlled Substance Act, prohibited offensive 

weapons, simple assault, and aggravated assault. The day after this arrest, the Probation 

Office filed an amended violation (Grade A) of supervised release.

On January 7, 2010, Harper was arrested once again, and this time was charged 

with knowingly and intentionally possessing a controlled substance. Accordingly, the 

Probation Office filed yet another amended violation (Grade A).
3

On March 5, 2010, the District Court held a hearing at which it found Harper to be 

in violation of the terms of his supervised release and sentenced him to 21 months 

incarceration. Harper filed this timely appeal.

II

Because Harper did not object to his Guidelines calculation, we review for plain 

error. United States v. Watson, 482 F.3d 269, 274 (3d Cir. 2007).

By its terms, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) requires a finding by ―a preponderance of the 

evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.‖ When the 

condition is that the defendant not commit a crime, there is no requirement of conviction 

or even indictment. United States v. Poellnitz, 372 F.3d 562, 566 (3d Cir. 2004).

Here, Harper was charged with multiple state crimes that resulted in three separate 

Grade A violations of supervised release, any one of which would have yielded an 

imprisonment range of 18–24 months under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 

The District Court asked Harper whether he wished to admit to the alleged violations or 

required an evidentiary hearing. Harper stated, through counsel, that he was prepared to 

admit to the violations, albeit with explanation. Harper then proceeded to contest his 

January 7, 2010 arrest.

On appeal, Harper claims the District Court erred when it failed to honor his 

statutory right to a hearing as to the contested charge. Even had the District Court erred 
4

in this respect—and we are not concluding that it did on the facts presented—it had no 

effect on Harper’s substantial rights in light of his admissions to the conduct charged by 

the Probation Office relative to the March 19, 2009 and August 25, 2009 arrests. See, 

e.g., United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159, 2164 (2010) (explaining that the third 

prong of the ―plain error‖ test is that the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights).

Accordingly, the District Court did not commit plain error and its judgment will be 

affirmed.